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 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 |
This query is linked to a BLP concern. The Ferdinand Soltmann section of Haemophilia in European royalty describes the medical status of an otherwise non-notable descendant of Queen Victoria and discusses his ancestry, citing a web forum post that is behind a subscription wall of some sort at Nobiliana.de. [1] The forum post is by a royalty follower named Arturo Beéche, who is claimed to be an 'expert' [2], but as far as I can tell his only claim to expertise is self-publishing (web site and book publisher, eurohistory.com). It seems this may not be a WP:RS, and hence may be a WP:BLP violation. Agricolae ( talk) 18:44, 12 July 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.
There is a continuing dispute at War on Women regarding the use of Policymic.com as a reliable source, especially in regards to BLPs. Its editorial standards are somewhat lax, using more of a crowdsourcing model, and their standards for writers seems overinclusionary. It's never been discussed here as far as I can tell, so it would be nice to nip this in the bud. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
However, WP:SYNTH may apply as this source doesn't mention anything about the "War on women". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Policymic.com is precisely a "blog" site. [5] makes no claims as to editorial controls or fact checking whatsoever. [6] "Terms of Service" requires the blogger to be at least 13 years old, which is not really a sign of an RS site, as far as I can tell. "You are solely responsible for the activity that occurs on your account" tells us that the site assumes zero responsibility for anything published by any account. " All Content added, created, uploaded, submitted, distributed, or posted to the Services by users (collectively “User Content”), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such User Content" is also explicit. This site does not meet WP:RS at all for anything.
Need anything be added to this discussion when the "all caps" part of its ToS is so clear? Collect ( talk) 12:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My contribution was specifically solicited. Farber (2012) "Nikki..." Policymic here is not reliable for the claims as: no editorial control, op-ed being used to source facts, no fact checking evidenced, public wiki. The content should be immediately removed as a BLP violation, or sourced against an appropriate article (not an op-ed) from a real media outlet with a reputation for accuracy. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
That this appears on Policymic adds nothing with respect to WP:RS, it is not a newspaper with an editorial policy that would be recognized as such on WP. The ability of a submission to generate "buzz" does not qualify; in newspaper terms that would be like including letters to the editor as WP:RS if they attracted over 100 comments online. The WP:RS of the submission is entirely on whether the author, and their opinion is regarded as a notable expert on a subject; in this case the issue seems to be "what comprises this alleged war on women?". That the question of credentials or authority to declare this "war" is being discussed points to far greater problems with the article itself than with this reference. No, her opinion piece would NOT be considered an authoritative opinion meeting WP:RS on a similar article. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Source: "Professional EFT? or Easy EFT!" http://www.eftuniverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9206
Article: Emotional Freedom Techniques - proposed on the Talk Page
Content: [This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders; they say that EFT has the advantage of being both a simple self-administered personal growth tool, and a clinical tool for professional EFT practitioners.] This was originally proposed for the lead section, but is now being contemplated to be proposed for the "Process" section as a third party source.
Discussion:
Heraldica.org is a hobby site [9] run by François R. Velde [10] who may well be a reliable source for economics but I don't see this as meeting our criteria as a source for geneaology and heraldry. It's used quite a bit [11] so if it's agreed it shouldn't be used will need cleanup. Dougweller ( talk) 09:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
We've discussed Theroff before. [12] [13]. We use his site [14] including his news site for a number of articles. [15] Many of the articles, perhaps most, are BLP articles or include discussion of BLPs. He's extremely popular, but is that a good reason to use a self-published source, particularly in BLPs where it is explicit that we shouldn't? "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." Dougweller ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate any attention to current issues involving sourcing. There is a discussion on the talk page involving a proposed move and some editing that I believe is not based on neutral sources. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This enquiry concerns sources cited in the article The Bible and homosexuality for the meaning attached to the Greek word arsenokoites (plural: arsenokoitai; abstract: arsenokoitia; verb: arsenokoitein) by writers of the 1st to the 5th centuries.
A. Is John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1981 ISBN 978-0-226-06711-7), pp. 350-351 a reliable source for the three unattributed statements:
B. Is Robert A. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-42673078-8) a reliable source for the attributed statement: "Robert A. Gagnon states that 'in every instance where the arsenokoit- word group occurs in a context that offers clues to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list) it denotes homosexual intercourse'. He cites instances of its use by (eight Greek writers of the 2nd to 5th centuries)"? Esoglou ( talk) 07:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, but here goes anyway. The "-koites" element, deriving from a verb, means "go to bed with" (not "fuck", though one undoubtedly implies the other). The "arseno-" element gives the object of the implied verb. So the whole word means, as clear as day, "going to bed with a male or males."
In the abstract, the subject of the verb (the governing noun of this adjective) can equally be male or female. Since Paul didn't give a noun, but used this adjective as if it were a noun, his meaning is, as clear as day, "those people who go to bed with a male or males". There is clearly room for argument about whether Paul meant "those men who go to bed with a male or males" exclusively, i.e. whether Paul meant same-sex coupling exclusively, but the word itself doesn't specify. Andrew Dalby 11:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As part of the SPA heavy deletion discussion for Platypus Affiliated Society, only active keep!v has argued that for purpose of notability the Weekly Worker and the Workers Vanguard (the only sources that have made significant coverage that meets the WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG criteria) as reliable sources.
I have argued repeatedly that it is not, but they insist they are.
My argument centers in that while as notable journals in their topic area they might be reliable sources for supplemental information, verifiability, etc, their limited readership, partisan orientation (both are the official newspapers of political organizations) and their limited topic areas make them unreliable as a gauge of notability.
The assumption of good faith is thinning out - specially in the SPA heavy environment that smells of socks, so some uninvolved assistance/commentary might be good.
Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 21:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for asking for outside assistance. I agree this is needed. At issue is whether these sources are reliable for establishing notability as media sources which cover the organization. I was under the impression based on WP:RS that these sources are reliable in that there is evidence and a reputation of fact-checking and editorial control. While the sources are arguably biased, according to WP:RS, these sources are being used to demonstrate media coverage and notability as per WP:GNG, for which bias is perfectly acceptable, indeed "Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" WP:RS. It would be great if we could clarify whether these sources constitute media coverage -- because the question is not using these sources to attribute statements of fact. Uninvolved commentary would be helpful, here. Eulerianpath ( talk) 2602:306:CD91:2220:A488:F0EA:D38C:83D8 ( talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The main question then is whether these two publications are reliable sources. That depends on whether they are staffed by professional journalists, have fact-checking and are considered to be reliable by other media.
Please advise whether this National Public Radio interview of Nina Jablonski by Robert Krulwich on the topic of human skin pigmentation is a reliable source for use on the human skin color and race (human classification) wikipages. An editor has argued that it isn't, and that the following wikitext sourced to it is unverifiable:
More recent research has found that human populations over the past 50,000 years have changed from dark-skinned to light-skinned and vice versa. Only 100-200 generations ago, the ancestors of most people living today likely also resided in a different place and had a different skin color. According to specialist Nina Jablonski, head of Penn State's Department of Anthropology, darkly-pigmented modern populations in South India and Sri Lanka are an example of this, having redarkened after their ancestors migrated down from areas much farther north. Scientists originally believed that such shifts in pigmentation occurred relatively slowly. However, researchers have since observed that changes in skin coloration can happen in as little as 100 generations (~2,500 years), with no intermarriage required. The speed of change is also affected by clothing, which tends to slow it down.
Jablonski is the head of Penn State University's anthropology department, and is one of the foremost authorities on the science of human skin pigmentation. She's written several papers on the subject, and received the W. W. Howells Award of the American Anthropological Association for best book in biological anthropology for Skin: A Natural History. This book and some of her other works are already cited as sources on the human skin color wikipage. Soupforone ( talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
At For Lovers Only, there have been attempts to add content about a related documentary film on the making of the Film. The documentary is entitled How We Made Love. The source presented is this, which does not seem to be a WP:RS as it is not even a secondary source, but rather a primary source. I have removed this type of content twice now, but want to be sure I am doing what is right.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This site is currently used on a great many BLPs to state that a person is gay etc. Is this site generally to be regarded as a reliable site per WP:RS and WP:BLP for claims about sexual orientation of a living person? This came up at WP:BLP/N with regard to Mo Rocca. As a separate issue, where The Advocate attributes a claim about sexual orientation to a podcast, is such a source sufficiently strong to label or categorize a person by sexual orientation? (same discussion) Thanks. Collect ( talk) 20:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is perhaps a question of relative strength of sources. In this edit, one source is being used to trump another source, in order to make a comment about the nature of the influence of the Cyropedia on the founding fathers of the USA.
I request comments on whether such trumping is acceptable in this case. Note that a third option is available which would be to mention both opinions, but also in this case some guidance would be appreciated on appropriate weighting. Neither source looks great to me, and so looking for better sources is perhaps also part of the eventual discussion needed.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to consider The Wizard 1986 – The Michael Berk Collection a reliable source for details of the life and work of Michael Berk? (Not that I can immediately see any details that it even appears to support). Would appreciate the opinion of others before I remove the only reference to a poor article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am giving Human Rights Watch as source about Godhra train burning which triggered 2002 Gujarat violence. There are two theories, 'accidental fire' and 'attack by a muslim mob'. 'Accidental fire' theory is well-sourced. I want to use this and other sources for 'attack by a muslim mob' theory. But verifying this first. This is 2002 report and this is 2012 article which quotes their 2002 report. 2002 report states and I quote, "On February 27, 2002, in the town of Godhra, a Muslim mob attacked a train on which Hindu nationalists were traveling. Two train cars were set on fire, killing at least fifty-eight people." The 2012 article writes and I quote, "The violence in Gujarat started on February 27, 2002, when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob and caught fire, killing 59 people." :I am not stating it as fact in proposal. I am attributing it to HRW and I am directly quoting from sources but User:Maunus still accuse me of 'misrepresenting' source and also do not acknowledge reliability of source. Is the source reliable and am I misreprenting it? neo ( talk) 16:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It is usual tactics by Maunus to say that what I am asking for already exists in the article. Purpose of such statements is to stop other users from commenting or looking at this matter. this section of the article shows only 'accident' theory. It doesn't talk about 'muslim mob' theory. And maunus statement that as HRW report largely talk about 'attacks by hindus' hence I can't use it for 'attack by muslims' is stunningly weird. Based on this argument he has rejected UN report also. neo ( talk) 12:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Is Gawker a reliable source for the opinion given in the article on The New Inquiry? It doesn't look like an RS to me, but perhaps it is acceptable as a source of an opinion (not a fact)? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This source "Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction" is being used in the article 2002 Gujarat violence to support a statement "There were more than 60 investigations by national and international bodies many of which having investigated the incident, concluded there was support from state officials in the violence". I do not have any questions about the reliability of the whole book but the above statement is picked up from an unpublished paper as can be seen on the page 357. The exact statement in the source is "21 See A.Rashied Omar, "The Gujarat Massacre", unpublished paper 2009, Omar notes that more than 60 national and international agencies that investigated 2002 Gujarat violence concluded that the Gujarat state were complicit". The question is can we use this unpublished paper as a reliable source?- sarvajna ( talk) 10:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
On the article Anti-Muslim violence in India, an opinion of a student of Bachelor of Arts, Elaisha Nandrajog is added. The thesis is here. Question: Is the thesis of a BA student considered reliable? Is the opinion of a BA student expressed in their thesis considered notable enough to include in article? The sentences being added are "Elaisha Nandrajog argues that the violence in Gujarat in 2002 was inevitable as the state government had replaced history and political science textbooks with material written by the RSS. And that this "communal indoctrination" over twenty years had made young people willing subjects of the state." §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 11:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This article has sourced rumors about the actor's possible gay love interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chand_Kelvin&oldid=564596671 I had removed it but it was readded. The sources used for this section are: http://www.slidegossip.com/2012/05/chand-kelvin-cowok-keren-ini-pacar-baru.html and http://www.cumicumi.com/posts/2012/10/19/31118/26/olga-syahputra-bungkam-soal-hubungan-dengan-chand-kelvin.html. Are these reliable sources? (I can't read Indonesian.) And are we even allowed to include rumors about sexuality of living people, even if reliably sourced? I went looking around for a clear and concise policy on sourced rumors in BLP articles but I didn't find anything more detailed then WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPGOSSIP.-- Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 11:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an article I would like to use from the New Zealand Theatrereview: http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/review.php?id=4700 - It talks how a play originated from an internet incident involving a self-published novel, The Greek Seaman.
About the source, http://www.theatreview.org.nz/about.php states "The New Zealand Performing Arts Review & Directory (@www.theatreview.org.nz) is operated by The Theatreview Trust NZ Charities Commission Reg. No. CC45963 TRUSTEES (as at January 2011): Margaret Belich (Development Manager), Dawn Sanders (Arts Manager), John Smythe (Writer), Todrick Taylor (Accountant) and Michael Wray (Chartered Management Accountant). " And http://web.archive.org/web/20110724195357/http://www.register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/CharitySummary.aspx?id=748059c3-0107-e011-bae6-00155d741101 has the charity details.
Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Please refer this discussion. Some users are arguing that United Nations Human Rights Commission, European Parliament, United States Department of State, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International websites are not reliable sources. They all state direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob in Gujarat train burning. But the users deny credibility of these sites and want "scholarly" book citations. I can't search google books because of browser problem. But are UN, EU government, US government, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch less credible than some book written by some Professor? neo ( talk) 19:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
These sources are potentially usable, even for history, but may be primary sources, so use with great care. Academic sources are also reliable and should usually be preferred even to these official sources from the time. Consult WP:PSTS. WP:HISTRS should also be useful. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
"How exactly conclusion based on primary sources is original research?" This is not an appropriate question. Published sources that contain original research are perfectly acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. It is Wikipedia articles that should not place original research in articles.
"Does governments do less research than academicians while taking diplomatic decisions?" The research by government agencies is sometimes just as good as academicians, but what the government ultimately publish is determined by the politicians, so may be biased and may contain deliberate lies. Of course this may happen with academic sources too, but usually there is less motive, and there are many academic sources to compare. The government is a monopoly. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Emik Avakian died on July 11. May he rest in peace. The only source that I found was a YouTube video that say he died. The youtube video is uploaded by Stepan Partamian who was a leading researcher in the life of Emik Avakian: See here and his book [ http://books.google.com/books?id=Ww1GmwEACAAJ&dq Yes, We Have Too: Contributions of American-Armenians to the United States of America] (Unfortunately its an offline source). Can we just go ahead and call it a RS? Proudbolsahye ( talk) 01:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
At English Defence League there was a claim sourced to ABC news which in turn referred to "a report by The Telegraph". Please see Talk:English Defence League#Abcnews and Telegraph sources for details of the article claim and what the sources say. The situation is ambiguous but I feel the article does not properly capture what the sources state. Could someone more familiar with this kind of second hand sourcing take a look please? - 84user ( talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Source: Stueck, William W. (1995), The Korean War: An International History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 196, ISBN 0691037671
Source text: "Most nations of the Arab-Asian group were of similar mind, willing to express support for the initial action in Korea, but determined to avoid commitments that would fundamentally undermine their middle course in the East-West conflict. Eight members of the loosely knit group offered no material aid to the UN enterprise in Korea. India donated a field hospital; but then, as the war lingered on and Nehru and Rau persisted in their efforts at mediation, India sent a similar hospital to the other side as well. US resistance to Arab-Asian attempts at meditation hardened most of the governments in their determination to avoid commitment to the West."
Supported edit: Add India to the medical support section on the Communist side in the Korean War infobox
Current discussions on the Korean War talk page
Other involved parties: User:Brigade Piron
Focus of dispute:
1. Dr. Stueck made an error by stating India sent a field hospital instead of field ambulance to the UN side. Therefore he could be wrong on the amount of aid India sent to the other side as well. Also political histories sources are notoriously poor on military details.
My response: The source of dispute is the Indian stance and belligerence on Korean War, not the military orbat of Indian forces during the Korean War. Thus this dispute clearly falls in the area of political/diplomatic history of the Korean War, and Dr. Stueck is recognized as the leading expert in the area. Dr. Stueck may be wrong on the details of Indian aids sent to the both sides, but his point that India, as part of its foreign policy, sent an identical amount of medical aid to both side in an attempt to stay neutral does carry a lot of weight on the discussion of Indian belligerence. Finally there are other belligerents in the infobox that got included for donating a lot less aids than India ( for example).
2. No other mainstream sources were found during the discussion that repeated Dr. Stueck's claim on Indian medical contributions to the Communist side during the Korean War.
My response: lack of multiple sources repeating Dr. Stueck does not mean Stueck's claim was widely rejected by the majority academics, given Dr. Stueck's high regard in Korean War studies. However, I am seeking community guidance on whether WP:REDFLAG applies in this case. Jim101 ( talk) 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Am I correct that the locus is merely on the precise nature and amount of aid rather than the fact that India gave similar aid to each side? I consider the distinction, as stated, to be less than substantial enough to reject the source. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, is there an Indian history expert that can comment on the matter? My research brought me into areas I am very unfamiliar with, like the political careers of Jawaharlal Nehru and the US-Soviet-Indian relations between 1950 to 1960s. I don't dare to disclose my understandings on those topics based on just few hours of browsing book indexes under "I" and none stop Google searches. Jim101 ( talk) 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I found [18] which makes clear that "Field Ambulance" does not mean a vehicle but was "(Parachute) Field Ambulance" and had 320 men (another source states 373 men). India did chair the "Neutral Nation Repatriation Commission". The CFI used that same "ambulance." [19] page 129 states that only India and Burma outside the Communist bloc voted "nay" on the UN Resolution condemning China as the aggressor. I suggest this later use of the same forces is what is at issue? Collect ( talk) 08:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:RSN says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." [20] which is about Rick Still has Rick Still's name as the author. Do we then accept it as a RS without any verification? I removed it at UFO Phil and Rick Still but it was replaced. I've removed it again from the UFO Phil article but then thought I'd come here. Dougweller ( talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't know if this is an acceptable source where Rick Still clearly states that he plays the UFO Phil character. Comparing the photos of Rick Still and UFO Phil, it's obviously the same guy. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The article on Ernest Mason Satow currently includes references to several Lulu-published books that were (apparently) originally written by the subject himself, but are probably no longer in print under their original (or any mainstream) publishers. I'm a bit concerned that the page itself was started by the editor who published through Lulu (who is a professor of English at a Japanese university) and so the references may fall under WP:ADVERTISEMENT. I'm not really concerned that the Lulu-published books are being cited as sources, because that doesn't appear to be the case. Ruxton appears to be a good scholar and a productive Wikipedian (I'm not outing him, as his official homepage openly declares Historian to be his Wikipedia account), seeing the name Lulu mentioned so many times in the article on a 19th-century Japanologist is off-putting. 猿丸 太 夫 14:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I found this review of Verax (film) from Crikey:
Would Crikey be considered an RS for the purposes of posting a review of a short film? WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The Chennai_Express article has been given the following source as a you-tube video. The video is from SUN News , which is one of the big Indian media channels. The video has been officially published by the television in its News channel .
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFGG8zZkGSs&list=WLo-RQ04tOAUUt9xAMVoM2R8YzX-WBtFzW Article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennai_Express
Content from the source : Chennai Express Poster and Trailer that have been released in Twitter and YouTube , are criticized by some film makers of
South India for being deliberately demeaning to Tamil Culture and Tamil Language. The accent used by Deepika resembles
Malayalam accent rather than Tamil, according to them. There is an edit war going on , and the edit war is inappropriately tagged as vandalism with Personal comments on me , which is recorded in the talk page. Hence posting here for second opinion
If one has reasonably strong assurance that the youtube channel is the same as the copyright owners --- yes it is
One clarification - The channel is news channel and the program is a Debate program where some South indian Directors have opined thier thoughts. And yes its a playback .Past show's particlar episode's schedule cant be obtained but the Sun Tv website itsef has link to this program http://www.sunnetwork.in/tv-channel-details.aspx?Channelid=10&channelname=SUN%20NEWS Karthikeyan.pandian ( talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) begins: Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, citation needed and peoples of other continents ( Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492. For practical purposes, travel across the Bering Straits, or the former land bridge in the same region are excluded.
The fact tag was added 3 times last night - I removed it twice as I didn't understand why it was added, and each time I asked that it be discussed on the talk page. The editor ignored my request and his/her 3rd edit summary asked me not to play dumb, putting the word 'confused' in scare quotes, and finally (and in the wrong place - it should have been on the talk page) asked where the number was coming from and saying that it should be in the article. That's a bit more helpful although still no excuse. It's true that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." but that's not what's happened here. The lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
The article is not about when Native Americans reached the Americas. It is about controversies concerning other groups which are alleged to have come to America before 10,000 BCE and 1492 CE. The article does not suggest when Native Americans came to America and there is no academic controversy about there being Native Americans here 12,000 years ago (see Clovis culture).
So there should be no fact tag for 2 reasons:
The date is part of defining the article - if there is a problem with the definition of the article that should be brought up on the talk page. I don't see how WP:LEAD can apply here, this is not a discussion of material that should appear later in the article, it is just defining the article.
The date is not controversial except among Young Earth Creationists. Clovis culture is earlier than this date, and it is 'Clovis first which was what the now pretty much outdated academic controversy was about. WP:VERIFY doesn't seem to require a fact tag no matter where this is placed in the article, especially as it isn't saying when Native Americans arrived. Dougweller ( talk) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added a reference for it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
On Death of Shane Todd, Theinsidefacts keeps adding references such as [ [21]] in his edits [ [22]], then claims that these were "independant report in the public domain. Under WP policy there is no requirement for a source to be referenced specifically by a news agency. The source is quite clearly the author of the report and that has been cited."[ [23]]. Looking at the original source documents (even assuming it is genuine), one an clearly see that it is in fact some form of personal correspondence between the doctor and another party rather than an actual report. I also note that the document seems to have been edited to mask the identity of the party the doctor was corresponding with, which means there's no way to be sure if anything else in the document had been edited prior to uploading. Hope more senior editors and admins can help me out on this, thanks! Zhanzhao ( talk) 03:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Islamic Encyclopedia fashions itself as a non-open, privately edited encyclopedia on Islamic topics, especially biographies of Muslim notables. According to their About Us page, they publish stuff from a number of primary and secondary source books of history and mention works of respected historians like Ibn Khallikan. The thing is, those sources are reliable, but is the cite? Can it be used as a source in biographies of historical Muslim figures? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Some Orientalists have tried to discredit him. The Brille [sic] Edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam tries to disparage him by saying, “He was the father of Qur’anic exegesis; at a time when it was necessary to bring the Qur’an into accord with the new demand of a society which had undergone profound transformation; he appears to have been extremely skilful in accomplishing this task.” (Art., `Abdullah ibn `Abbas). The hidden meaning is: Ibn `Abbas bent the Qur’anic commentary to confirm the Qur’an with the changing demands of his time. Considering the fact that the Qur’an is a living miracle, but beyond the understanding of superficial minds, poorly educated and trained to think in materialistic terms, the above statement can be excused.
— Islamic Encyclopedia
Once I came across warnings about reliable sources. So I would to ask whether or not Debka files is reliable. Thanks, Egeymi ( talk) 12:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I am currently on the process of writing the "culture" section for the Falkland Islands article improvement project (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). The problem is that not much is mentioned on the culture aside from that it is essentially identical to British culture. I am wondering if the The Bradt Travel Guide on the Falkland Islands (written by Will Wagstaff) would be a reliable sources to use solely on the culture section? I have searched for prior similar cases and the consensus seems to be that each case is different. I wanted to know for sure other thoughts about this prior to using the Wagstaff source in the article. Thanks in advance.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z is host to an unusual and popular meme known as "It's over 9000!" which is a years old cultural icon amongst its fans that has been acknowledged by Funimation itself. At the heart of the matter is sourcing for it. Originally I used a book dedicated to the topic itself, Dragon Ball Z "It's Over 9,000!" When Worldviews Collide by Derek Padula. Padula's work is a self publication with indepth coverage and analysis of the meme and its meaning, popularity and philosophy about the scene it self. While the opinion of the author is not used in any shape or form, the citation exists to accurately depict creation, origin and original media from which it spawned. Padula's work has been reviewed and praised by two other fan sources, Screwattack and Japanator. Screwattack is itself a company "ScrewAttack Entertainment LLC" which has operated for 7 years, with a good deal of popularity, I suspect a review of the book lends some credibility to it. Japanator is another source, sometimes questionable on its own for its publication of rumor as rumor, but Japanator actually interviewed the creator back in 2008 and then upon the unrelated-to-the-site release of Padula's book, did a review on it. The details of the interview did make its place into Padula's work, but it is perhaps the review of the book which is the key point for validation of it. [24] The reviewer states, "Derek Padula has done a stunning service to those looking to turn a scholarly eye to the series to dissect comparisons between the two heroes, their similarities, and key turning points during which we could immediately discern the characters had grown both mentally and physically..." The book itself has been praised in the small quarterly Shadowland Magazine which can be found in book stores and comic shops, all the more to validate the book itself as source by acknowledgement from the community. Padula's previous book was also well received if you don't mind me pointing out.
A second issue remains, where the actual primary source material is "not a reliable source" in the eyes of Ryulong. It is not synthesis to compare the Japanese language work and original English work and note that "Hassen ijou da!" is mistranslated because "Hassen" translates to 8000. And two English dubs from Ocean and Funimation both use the line on their respective releases. Here's where it gets complicated, due to the success of the series, two variations were made for the re-release as Dragon Ball Kai. Funimation produced the "over 9000" for TV and "over 8000" for DVD release, with the immediate lines themselves being different around it as well.
The TV script:
Nappa: Vegeta! Vegeta! What's wrong with you?! Tell me what his power level is! Vegeta: It's over 9000! Nappa: What?! 9000?! You've got to be kidding me, that thing's a piece of junk! - Dragon Ball Z Kai, Episode 21 on TV (Nick Toons in this case)
The DVD script:
Nappa: Vegeta! What does the scouter say about his power level?! Vegeta: It's over 8000! Raah! Nappa: 8000?! C'mon, that can't be right! It must be broken or something. - Dragon Ball Z Kai: "Protect the Dragon Balls! The Namekian's All-Out Attack!" Episode 21 on Funimation DVD.
This different is not a violation of WP:SYN, anyone can look at the two versions and notice the differences. Though I can also point out that the differences in the original Z release comes on 28 of Funimation's dub versus 21 of Ocean sub. I do not see how these "primary sources" are not reliable nor how a book about it, an interview with the creator or other validations including Funimation's own actions as "unreliable". ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Check out his college website [25] they have it correct of May 21 not May 2. Also, he is my daughter's boyfriend so I know when his birthday is, although I'm sure you can't just take my word for it.
I believe the editor of this document does not understand Wikipedia's own editorial policy or the status of a movie as a document in its own right--
The requested reliable source is the film referred to.
Could someone please add their opinion on one side or other of this discussion.
I would like to ask if http://maplight.org/ is a reliable source. thanks James Michael DuPont ( talk) 11:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Can this page on what is apparently the Tumblr of writer Brian Michael Bendis be used to source the claim about his son. At issue are two points that I request be addressed here:
1. While I find User:Silverseren's comments on Tumblr in this January 2013 RSN discussion to be well-reasoned, I wonder, how do we verify that a given Tumblr account belongs to the person whom it appears to belong to? Twitter has "verified" accounts that are denoted by a blue check mark on the user's page, so that allows us to use Twitter accounts, but how do we do this with Tumblr?
2. Does the fact that they are making claims about a third party---in this case the Wikipedia editor whom he complains keeps removing the unsourced info from his Wikipedia article---mean that using that page would violate the second exclusionary criterion listed at WP:SELFPUB? Nightscream ( talk) 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In the page Kabaa, i am trying to clarify my edit [28], but one of the editor seems to be disagreeing, even though the sources 2 sources i have used, were declared to be reliable, in a noticeboard. This time, i would like to know, if any of the following sources are credible?
Capitals00 ( talk) 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Zeitgeist: The Movie contains details of a published interview with the filmmaker. The filmmaker claims, through the film's website, that he was misquoted. Are we allowed to quote his public statement, sourced using only the film's website?
The film's official website later contained a statement by Joseph addressing the interview, saying, "At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."
Thanks -- Equazcion (talk) 06:39, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
Is The Travel Kernel Reliable enough for use in Invercargill Airport?.-- Anderson I'm Willing To Help 08:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor started adding these to articles. I took a look and it looks like a blog to me so it can't be a reliable source. Searching here, I noticed over 50 articles have it linked, so I'm doubting myself and am looking for more opinions. Is it possible to blacklist this site also? DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 09:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Source: (in Chinese) Zhang, Song Shan (张嵩山) (2010), Decipher Shangganling (解密上甘岭), Beijing: Beijing Publishing House, ISBN 978-7-200-08113-8
Background on the writer: Zhang Song Shan is currently serving in the Chinese People's Liberation Army as a writer. Appears to be specialized/famous in China for his historical writings/research on the Battle of Triangle Hill. I am currently not aware that this writer had published or recognized for his research on US military or political history, or the history of Korean War in general.
Claims being made: in from pages 295 to page 296 of his book, Zhang linked the event of Battle of Triangle Hill with the events of United States presidential election, 1952 (but he did not clearly state just how exactly does one affect the other).
Reason for inquiry: On Wikipedia:OR_noticeboard#1952_United_States_presidential_election_and_Battle_of_Triangle_Hill and Talk:Battle_of_Triangle_Hill#U.S._elections_backdrop, there is a dispute on whether or not to follow Zhang's narrative in the article Battle of Triangle Hill about the 1952 United States presidential election (mentioning the election without drawing conclusions).
My stance: my gut feeling is to ignore Zhang's claim completely since US election is not his area of expertise and no US sources repeated his claim, but his notion that Battle of Triangle Hill impacted the 1952 US presidential election does appear to be popularly recognized in China (or Chinese editors in this matter). I just want to see where the community stands on this issue. Jim101 ( talk) 20:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The population data of Somalian cities enter the article Somalia via Template:Largest cities of Somalia. It has been complicated to find reliable sources for those (see for example Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134#World Gazetteer). Recently 2 new sources were proposed with worldwide city data:
At Template talk:Largest cities of Somalia, user:Middayexpress and I have been trying to work out if these are reliable sources. The discussion has focussed on what are the underlying sources for the case of Somalia, and whether they are reliable (as the websites themselves [imo] are not automatically reliable sources, as they seem not to stem from a respected university, institute or government). We could use some ideas from this noticeboard! L.tak ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have not been involved with the article, but I suspect that in this case, Know Your Meme is perhaps the best source possible for autonomous sensory meridian response ( diff for context) because they have a reputation for accurately researching the genesis of such neologisms, and an editorial staff experienced in doing so. EllenCT ( talk) 20:19, 28 July 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.
I would like to know whether three studies from the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology published by Dove Medical Press can be used in the Wikipedia article on Morgellons disease.
The three studies in question are:
Because of a dispute among editors at the Morgellons article, dispute resolution was sought, and all editors agreed to abide by the decision made by the dispute mediator (whose username is TransporterMan). TransporterMan, the dispute mediator, decided that the Dove Medical Press articles did not even meet WP:SOURCES, let alone WP:MEDRS. You can read the dispute resolution discussion HERE — click on "show" on that page to view the discussion.
Since I fully agreed to abide by the mediator's decision, I cannot now use these Dove Medical Press studies in the Morgellons article, and I will honor this agreement (until such time as new research is published, at which point, as per the agreement, the decision will need to be reviewed and renewed).
However, I would still like to get a second opinion on the suitability of these three studies for use in the Morgellons article, and thus welcome any input and perspective offered on this. Many thanks for your help.
I wanted to use these three Dove Medical Press studies to support the view that Morgellons disease is a real disease involving certain unusual skin lesions. These studies detail the nature of the skin lesions in Morgellons patients. Drgao ( talk) 17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Further, the appearance of a new source would not undo the decision made on the sources reviewed at the DRN. You agreed to: "if new sources pro or con are developed, by which I mean that they are published for the first time after the decision here, then they can be raised and discussed by either side." (Emphasis in original.) What may be discussed is the new published sources.
If this
tendentious behavior continues we will discuss it at
WP:ANI.
Zad
68
17:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Drgao is incorrect when he says, "the decision is only binding until such time as new studies are published, whence the effect of the decision expires." The agreement was, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Morgellons#Moving forward with C: "It also means that if new sources pro or con are developed, by which I mean that they are published for the first time after the decision here, then they can be raised and discussed by either side." (Emphasis added.) That is, the new sources can be raised and discussed. The agreement for arbitration was that it was a final, permanent, and binding decision between the involved parties for the sources included in the decision insofar as the Morgellons article is concerned.
As for enforcement, everyone also needs to understand that the arbitration agreement, in that same section, also said, "Finally, this agreement is a handshake and obligation of honor, not an enforceable agreement. I'm not an administrator and even if I was there's no provision in policy for enforcing an agreement such as this." I would not be surprised if an administrator would take a clear violation of the agreement into consideration when deciding whether someone was editing tendentiously or not, but as more of a "brick in the wall" than a reason for a tendentiousness violation per se. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
If at some point in the future Morgellons is proven to be caused by infection agents, then those
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that satisfactorially support that biomedical claim can be used. The future publishing of a reliable article won't retroactively make these three CCID articles reliable.
Zad
68
19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)As Dbrodbeck said, I answered your question, fully and concisely above. And, as Zad68 rightly points out, that question has been answered numerous times before. You would have understood it if you were familiar with the policies I listed above, especially WP:MEDRS. I don't know what else you expect. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:ANI thread: [44] Dbrodbeck ( talk) 13:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
There were no comments on the reliability of Persian Heritage (magazine) except for the two parties.
Party comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_150#Persian Heritage_(magazine). -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if that is a reliable source to extract information for an article (not copy and paste, but with my own words). I want to use something there in the Adam Clayton article. It is about the news on he getting married. Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Reliable source for a statement there is a dispute about the sourcing of what the Holy See's representative to the UN at Geneva is reported to have said. The disputed phrase is "he stated that states ... can and must regulate sexual behavior, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest". A proposal to modify this to "he stated that states ... can and must regulate sexual behavior, as, for example, they forbid pedophilia and incest" has been rejected. The part of the cited document that has been quoted as the basis for the version with "comparing" is: "Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behavior, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person's feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples". Esoglou ( talk) 11:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Determining whether a specific source is a "reliable source" for a specific claim is a proper use of this noticeboard. It appears the word "comparing" has several distinct meanings which may not all be supported by the source given. In such a case, the most specific wording attributed to the person being quoted is likely the best wording. If George Gnarph said "autosexuality, heterosexuality, pedophilia, homosexuality and antisexuality are all sexual orientations" then Gnarph has "compared" all of them to each other in the general sense of "listed them as belonging to a set of some sort". In such a hypothetical case, the more correct claim would be "George Gnarph listed a, b, c, and d as all being sexual orientations." Gnarph did not make a specific comparison of the different categories as being equivalent in that case. Again - this is a proper noticeboard for that query. Collect ( talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I have seen editors removing reviews by Common Sense Media from articles. They said that the website is unreliable just because it publishes media reviews for parents. I don't see how that makes any sense. The website is not controversial and is known for their reviews, as the article shows. They even review R rated films that are not for kids and those reviews are not bias. SL93 ( talk) 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Though you not seeing any reason why it would be used is not relevant to being reliable for film reviews. SL93 ( talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Presuming our article is correct I guess this makes this organization's opinions notable at least. It would still be good to see real examples of citations being deleted.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)"According to Common Sense Media’s website, the organization has content distribution contracts with Road Runner, TiVo, Yahoo!, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DIRECTV, NBC Universal, Netflix, Best Buy, Google, AOL/Huffington Post, Fandango, Trend Micro, Verizon Foundation, Nickelodeon, Bing, Cox Communications, Kaleidescape, AT&T, and NCM.[7] The organization’s current rating system differs from the system used by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Entertainment Software Rating Board.[10] It has received positive support from parents, and it has received support from President Barack Obama, who stated that its rating system favored "sanity, not censorship."[8][9]"
Hi, someone at the reference desk requested a translation of the French Wikipedia article on French painter Michel Bertrand. [46] I would like to make sure that such a translation would survive – I don’t want to go to all the trouble if someone is just going to delete it. The two issues raised by commenters were notability (I will ask that at the other notice board) and reliability – which is why I’m here. I confess I didn’t really understand the issue posted (‘’“what matters for notability is simply whether the references are substantial, in reliably sources, and independent of the subject”’’). Can you help me understand if these sources are reliable? Thanks. 184.147.137.9 ( talk) 21:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
1. [47] and [48] – listings on the website of Centre Georges Pompidou, a major library and modern art museum. (ie showing that this artist’s work is exhibited in the Musée National d'Art Moderne.)
2. [49] – brochure for an art festival in 2008 that mentions this artist was exhibiting.
3. [50] – google books result; catalogue for a collection in the Musée d'art moderne Saint-Etienne (mentioned in the en wikipedia Saint-Étienne article) that apparently includes at least one mention of this artist’s name )(I can’t access the book).
Thank you all, very helpful. BTW, he is a sculptor/painter, not a fencer as far as I know, but he did teach at l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Perpignan. And the French wikipedia article does mention he had two write-ups in a newspaper called L'Independant. However, since they were in 1976 and 1988, I doubt I'd find them online. Certainly the Perpignan paper of that name doesn't appear to have online archives. Is it going to be a problem just to translate the assertion that they exist? 184.147.137.9 ( talk) 12:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, thanks all. Turning into more work than a simple translation! Appreciate your advice. 184.147.137.9 ( talk) 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Advice, please! Can either of the following be considered reliable sources for details of the private life of Maximillion Cooper:
I know what I think, but would value the opinion of others. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
An article in a peer-reviewed academic journal Computer Music Journal has a study comparing the performance of various optical music recognition software products. Other reviews in Maximum PC, PC World and Music Educators Journal all say the software has a terrible user interface, but it basically works and is the best option available. This article says differently that other products perform better.
The author of the journal article is from the University of Florence, which develops a competing product, 03MR, which is one of the products it says performs better. The author therefor has a substantial conflict of interest.
I am hesitant to use a source authored by a competing "vendor", which unsurprisingly says that their software outperformed competitors, something other sources don't seem to agree with. However it is published by a very reputable source and User: Justlettersandnumbers brings up a good point that presumably the journal has taken the conflict of interest of the author into consideration and found the information still to be worthwhile. Thoughts on how and if we should use this source? CorporateM ( Talk) 14:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I am working on the article for Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, and in the timeline there, someone had referenced the governor's veto of a specific bill in the legislature. It made reference to a press release by the State in question, and I could not find another more clearly independent RS on GN that made reference to this particular veto (which it appears was overridden).
I did find a reference to this specific veto on the state bar association website.
My questions are as follows:
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 22:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The article has claims on the new president elect of Iran's PhD degree. I am wondering if it is considered reliable for WP:BLP purposes. Thanks.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 06:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Is History of Assam by E.A Gait, published in 1906 can be considered as reliable source, when newer books challenges its content. I also like to point towards earlier recommendation here and response it got. Thanks भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The Ripon Society maintains a website called the Ripon Advance, which issues posts and press releases. User:SandraJacoby15 has been inserting content from these releases into WP articles. Many sound promotional (e.g., [56], [57]); there also seem to be some copyright violations ( [58], [59]). Can a "centrist Republican think tank" be considered a reliable, neutral source? 71.139.152.154 ( talk) 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Sources are not required to be neutral or objective to be reliable. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources However, per Andy, just because they are reliable (for at least their own opinions) doesn't mean they merit inclusion, if their statements are not discussed elsewhere. One possible exeption would be if they are a placeholder/representative for a notable viewpoint, even if they themselves are not notable. (In that case one should be able to point out others who also hold the same viewpoint as well) Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A video of an investigative TV documentary posted at Hadrei Hadarim web portal has been linked as a reference to cite a certain fact. The relevant quote is mentioned in passing in the film by one of the journalists. 1) Is this video a copyright violation? 2) Can we use quotes in such films as RS? (The article in question does not make reference to this specific episode or news channel.) Chesdovi ( talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at Template:Did you know nominations/Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide as to whether or not the article in question meets NPOV. At present, the debate is focussed on whether the article's sources are reliable. In particular, this link from a newslist called groong has been questioned. I would appreciate some input here from uninvolved parties as to whether this website and this link in particular can be considered reliable per the usual policies. Thank you, Gatoclass ( talk) 14:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion (or the attempt at it) has been going on for some time now at Haredi Judaism. It relates to additions made by a novice editor User:Jonathan.bluestein. I wish to bring to attention at this point only one issue: That of using images as RS. Is there ever a circumstance when images can be used to cite text? If so, please can someone confirm when they can be used.
Please see Talk:Haredi Judaism#Using images as RS. I had removed the image of the swimming pool which was being used as a reference. It was re-addedby User:Jonathan.bluestein until he removed it himself: [60].
Now he insists on using another image as a source: [61]. I had removed it ([ [62]) and he has just re-added it ( [63]) after replying to my post at talk. Chesdovi ( talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A user is repeatedly adding ReasonTV as a source for discussing the "scientific consensus" about GMOs in an article about the March Against Monsanto. A discussion on the talk page found no consensus for its reliability nor for adding it to the article, but the user will not recognize any consensus and continues to add the link to the article. [65] We already have a good secondary source from the Associated Press that covers the same material without the added opinion or baggage. [66] The ReasonTV source self-identifies as a "video editorial", commentary that exists solely to make fun of the protesters. But, the editor is not actually using the source in the article, the editor is citing the blurb about the source, which is somewhat disingenuous. Further, the site itself is funded by a "right-libertarian research organization that...produces papers and studies to support a particular set of values." Additionally, the source has monetary connections to the topic of the article (Monsanto) that is under criticism (see the linked discussion). To summarize, the editor who keeps adding this source isn't actually citing the video but a blurb about the video. And, we already have a reliable secondary source from the AP that adequately covers the scientific consensus. Since the editor will not follow the consensus on the talk page, I am looking for further opinions here. If you actually watch the video, you will discover that this is basically a joke and far from a quality source. Viriditas ( talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for a website that is self published by an individual to present his/her personal point of view to be included in the External Links section? Rev107 ( talk) 09:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 145 | ← | Archive 150 | Archive 151 | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 |
This query is linked to a BLP concern. The Ferdinand Soltmann section of Haemophilia in European royalty describes the medical status of an otherwise non-notable descendant of Queen Victoria and discusses his ancestry, citing a web forum post that is behind a subscription wall of some sort at Nobiliana.de. [1] The forum post is by a royalty follower named Arturo Beéche, who is claimed to be an 'expert' [2], but as far as I can tell his only claim to expertise is self-publishing (web site and book publisher, eurohistory.com). It seems this may not be a WP:RS, and hence may be a WP:BLP violation. Agricolae ( talk) 18:44, 12 July 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.
There is a continuing dispute at War on Women regarding the use of Policymic.com as a reliable source, especially in regards to BLPs. Its editorial standards are somewhat lax, using more of a crowdsourcing model, and their standards for writers seems overinclusionary. It's never been discussed here as far as I can tell, so it would be nice to nip this in the bud. Thargor Orlando ( talk) 20:47, 4 July 2013 (UTC)
However, WP:SYNTH may apply as this source doesn't mention anything about the "War on women". A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 19:26, 5 July 2013 (UTC)
Policymic.com is precisely a "blog" site. [5] makes no claims as to editorial controls or fact checking whatsoever. [6] "Terms of Service" requires the blogger to be at least 13 years old, which is not really a sign of an RS site, as far as I can tell. "You are solely responsible for the activity that occurs on your account" tells us that the site assumes zero responsibility for anything published by any account. " All Content added, created, uploaded, submitted, distributed, or posted to the Services by users (collectively “User Content”), whether publicly posted or privately transmitted, is the sole responsibility of the person who originated such User Content" is also explicit. This site does not meet WP:RS at all for anything.
Need anything be added to this discussion when the "all caps" part of its ToS is so clear? Collect ( talk) 12:07, 7 July 2013 (UTC)
My contribution was specifically solicited. Farber (2012) "Nikki..." Policymic here is not reliable for the claims as: no editorial control, op-ed being used to source facts, no fact checking evidenced, public wiki. The content should be immediately removed as a BLP violation, or sourced against an appropriate article (not an op-ed) from a real media outlet with a reputation for accuracy. Fifelfoo ( talk) 03:56, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
That this appears on Policymic adds nothing with respect to WP:RS, it is not a newspaper with an editorial policy that would be recognized as such on WP. The ability of a submission to generate "buzz" does not qualify; in newspaper terms that would be like including letters to the editor as WP:RS if they attracted over 100 comments online. The WP:RS of the submission is entirely on whether the author, and their opinion is regarded as a notable expert on a subject; in this case the issue seems to be "what comprises this alleged war on women?". That the question of credentials or authority to declare this "war" is being discussed points to far greater problems with the article itself than with this reference. No, her opinion piece would NOT be considered an authoritative opinion meeting WP:RS on a similar article. -- Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 20:54, 10 July 2013 (UTC)
Source: "Professional EFT? or Easy EFT!" http://www.eftuniverse.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9206
Article: Emotional Freedom Techniques - proposed on the Talk Page
Content: [This is thought by practitioners to treat a wide variety of physical and psychological disorders; they say that EFT has the advantage of being both a simple self-administered personal growth tool, and a clinical tool for professional EFT practitioners.] This was originally proposed for the lead section, but is now being contemplated to be proposed for the "Process" section as a third party source.
Discussion:
Heraldica.org is a hobby site [9] run by François R. Velde [10] who may well be a reliable source for economics but I don't see this as meeting our criteria as a source for geneaology and heraldry. It's used quite a bit [11] so if it's agreed it shouldn't be used will need cleanup. Dougweller ( talk) 09:18, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
We've discussed Theroff before. [12] [13]. We use his site [14] including his news site for a number of articles. [15] Many of the articles, perhaps most, are BLP articles or include discussion of BLPs. He's extremely popular, but is that a good reason to use a self-published source, particularly in BLPs where it is explicit that we shouldn't? "Never use self-published sources – including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, and tweets – as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject (see below)." Dougweller ( talk) 12:14, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
Would appreciate any attention to current issues involving sourcing. There is a discussion on the talk page involving a proposed move and some editing that I believe is not based on neutral sources. Beeblebrox ( talk) 20:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
This enquiry concerns sources cited in the article The Bible and homosexuality for the meaning attached to the Greek word arsenokoites (plural: arsenokoitai; abstract: arsenokoitia; verb: arsenokoitein) by writers of the 1st to the 5th centuries.
A. Is John Boswell, Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality (University of Chicago Press 1981 ISBN 978-0-226-06711-7), pp. 350-351 a reliable source for the three unattributed statements:
B. Is Robert A. Gagnon, The Bible and Homosexual Practice (Abingdon Press 2010 ISBN 978-1-42673078-8) a reliable source for the attributed statement: "Robert A. Gagnon states that 'in every instance where the arsenokoit- word group occurs in a context that offers clues to its meaning (i.e., beyond mere inclusion in a vice list) it denotes homosexual intercourse'. He cites instances of its use by (eight Greek writers of the 2nd to 5th centuries)"? Esoglou ( talk) 07:47, 1 July 2013 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, but here goes anyway. The "-koites" element, deriving from a verb, means "go to bed with" (not "fuck", though one undoubtedly implies the other). The "arseno-" element gives the object of the implied verb. So the whole word means, as clear as day, "going to bed with a male or males."
In the abstract, the subject of the verb (the governing noun of this adjective) can equally be male or female. Since Paul didn't give a noun, but used this adjective as if it were a noun, his meaning is, as clear as day, "those people who go to bed with a male or males". There is clearly room for argument about whether Paul meant "those men who go to bed with a male or males" exclusively, i.e. whether Paul meant same-sex coupling exclusively, but the word itself doesn't specify. Andrew Dalby 11:43, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
As part of the SPA heavy deletion discussion for Platypus Affiliated Society, only active keep!v has argued that for purpose of notability the Weekly Worker and the Workers Vanguard (the only sources that have made significant coverage that meets the WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:GNG criteria) as reliable sources.
I have argued repeatedly that it is not, but they insist they are.
My argument centers in that while as notable journals in their topic area they might be reliable sources for supplemental information, verifiability, etc, their limited readership, partisan orientation (both are the official newspapers of political organizations) and their limited topic areas make them unreliable as a gauge of notability.
The assumption of good faith is thinning out - specially in the SPA heavy environment that smells of socks, so some uninvolved assistance/commentary might be good.
Thanks!-- Cerejota ( talk) 21:20, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for asking for outside assistance. I agree this is needed. At issue is whether these sources are reliable for establishing notability as media sources which cover the organization. I was under the impression based on WP:RS that these sources are reliable in that there is evidence and a reputation of fact-checking and editorial control. While the sources are arguably biased, according to WP:RS, these sources are being used to demonstrate media coverage and notability as per WP:GNG, for which bias is perfectly acceptable, indeed "Sometimes "non-neutral" sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject" WP:RS. It would be great if we could clarify whether these sources constitute media coverage -- because the question is not using these sources to attribute statements of fact. Uninvolved commentary would be helpful, here. Eulerianpath ( talk) 2602:306:CD91:2220:A488:F0EA:D38C:83D8 ( talk) 22:05, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
The main question then is whether these two publications are reliable sources. That depends on whether they are staffed by professional journalists, have fact-checking and are considered to be reliable by other media.
Please advise whether this National Public Radio interview of Nina Jablonski by Robert Krulwich on the topic of human skin pigmentation is a reliable source for use on the human skin color and race (human classification) wikipages. An editor has argued that it isn't, and that the following wikitext sourced to it is unverifiable:
More recent research has found that human populations over the past 50,000 years have changed from dark-skinned to light-skinned and vice versa. Only 100-200 generations ago, the ancestors of most people living today likely also resided in a different place and had a different skin color. According to specialist Nina Jablonski, head of Penn State's Department of Anthropology, darkly-pigmented modern populations in South India and Sri Lanka are an example of this, having redarkened after their ancestors migrated down from areas much farther north. Scientists originally believed that such shifts in pigmentation occurred relatively slowly. However, researchers have since observed that changes in skin coloration can happen in as little as 100 generations (~2,500 years), with no intermarriage required. The speed of change is also affected by clothing, which tends to slow it down.
Jablonski is the head of Penn State University's anthropology department, and is one of the foremost authorities on the science of human skin pigmentation. She's written several papers on the subject, and received the W. W. Howells Award of the American Anthropological Association for best book in biological anthropology for Skin: A Natural History. This book and some of her other works are already cited as sources on the human skin color wikipage. Soupforone ( talk) 21:40, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
At For Lovers Only, there have been attempts to add content about a related documentary film on the making of the Film. The documentary is entitled How We Made Love. The source presented is this, which does not seem to be a WP:RS as it is not even a secondary source, but rather a primary source. I have removed this type of content twice now, but want to be sure I am doing what is right.-- TonyTheTiger ( T/ C/ BIO/ WP:CHICAGO/ WP:FOUR) 04:36, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This site is currently used on a great many BLPs to state that a person is gay etc. Is this site generally to be regarded as a reliable site per WP:RS and WP:BLP for claims about sexual orientation of a living person? This came up at WP:BLP/N with regard to Mo Rocca. As a separate issue, where The Advocate attributes a claim about sexual orientation to a podcast, is such a source sufficiently strong to label or categorize a person by sexual orientation? (same discussion) Thanks. Collect ( talk) 20:06, 8 July 2013 (UTC)
This is perhaps a question of relative strength of sources. In this edit, one source is being used to trump another source, in order to make a comment about the nature of the influence of the Cyropedia on the founding fathers of the USA.
I request comments on whether such trumping is acceptable in this case. Note that a third option is available which would be to mention both opinions, but also in this case some guidance would be appreciated on appropriate weighting. Neither source looks great to me, and so looking for better sources is perhaps also part of the eventual discussion needed.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:25, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
Is there any reason to consider The Wizard 1986 – The Michael Berk Collection a reliable source for details of the life and work of Michael Berk? (Not that I can immediately see any details that it even appears to support). Would appreciate the opinion of others before I remove the only reference to a poor article. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 23:20, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
I am giving Human Rights Watch as source about Godhra train burning which triggered 2002 Gujarat violence. There are two theories, 'accidental fire' and 'attack by a muslim mob'. 'Accidental fire' theory is well-sourced. I want to use this and other sources for 'attack by a muslim mob' theory. But verifying this first. This is 2002 report and this is 2012 article which quotes their 2002 report. 2002 report states and I quote, "On February 27, 2002, in the town of Godhra, a Muslim mob attacked a train on which Hindu nationalists were traveling. Two train cars were set on fire, killing at least fifty-eight people." The 2012 article writes and I quote, "The violence in Gujarat started on February 27, 2002, when a train carrying Hindu pilgrims was attacked by a Muslim mob and caught fire, killing 59 people." :I am not stating it as fact in proposal. I am attributing it to HRW and I am directly quoting from sources but User:Maunus still accuse me of 'misrepresenting' source and also do not acknowledge reliability of source. Is the source reliable and am I misreprenting it? neo ( talk) 16:39, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
It is usual tactics by Maunus to say that what I am asking for already exists in the article. Purpose of such statements is to stop other users from commenting or looking at this matter. this section of the article shows only 'accident' theory. It doesn't talk about 'muslim mob' theory. And maunus statement that as HRW report largely talk about 'attacks by hindus' hence I can't use it for 'attack by muslims' is stunningly weird. Based on this argument he has rejected UN report also. neo ( talk) 12:02, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Is Gawker a reliable source for the opinion given in the article on The New Inquiry? It doesn't look like an RS to me, but perhaps it is acceptable as a source of an opinion (not a fact)? Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 11:01, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
This source "Religion and Human Rights: An Introduction" is being used in the article 2002 Gujarat violence to support a statement "There were more than 60 investigations by national and international bodies many of which having investigated the incident, concluded there was support from state officials in the violence". I do not have any questions about the reliability of the whole book but the above statement is picked up from an unpublished paper as can be seen on the page 357. The exact statement in the source is "21 See A.Rashied Omar, "The Gujarat Massacre", unpublished paper 2009, Omar notes that more than 60 national and international agencies that investigated 2002 Gujarat violence concluded that the Gujarat state were complicit". The question is can we use this unpublished paper as a reliable source?- sarvajna ( talk) 10:15, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
On the article Anti-Muslim violence in India, an opinion of a student of Bachelor of Arts, Elaisha Nandrajog is added. The thesis is here. Question: Is the thesis of a BA student considered reliable? Is the opinion of a BA student expressed in their thesis considered notable enough to include in article? The sentences being added are "Elaisha Nandrajog argues that the violence in Gujarat in 2002 was inevitable as the state government had replaced history and political science textbooks with material written by the RSS. And that this "communal indoctrination" over twenty years had made young people willing subjects of the state." §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { T/ C} 11:30, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
This article has sourced rumors about the actor's possible gay love interest: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chand_Kelvin&oldid=564596671 I had removed it but it was readded. The sources used for this section are: http://www.slidegossip.com/2012/05/chand-kelvin-cowok-keren-ini-pacar-baru.html and http://www.cumicumi.com/posts/2012/10/19/31118/26/olga-syahputra-bungkam-soal-hubungan-dengan-chand-kelvin.html. Are these reliable sources? (I can't read Indonesian.) And are we even allowed to include rumors about sexuality of living people, even if reliably sourced? I went looking around for a clear and concise policy on sourced rumors in BLP articles but I didn't find anything more detailed then WP:GRAPEVINE and WP:BLPGOSSIP.-- Brainy J ~✿~ ( talk) 11:54, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
There is an article I would like to use from the New Zealand Theatrereview: http://www.theatreview.org.nz/reviews/review.php?id=4700 - It talks how a play originated from an internet incident involving a self-published novel, The Greek Seaman.
About the source, http://www.theatreview.org.nz/about.php states "The New Zealand Performing Arts Review & Directory (@www.theatreview.org.nz) is operated by The Theatreview Trust NZ Charities Commission Reg. No. CC45963 TRUSTEES (as at January 2011): Margaret Belich (Development Manager), Dawn Sanders (Arts Manager), John Smythe (Writer), Todrick Taylor (Accountant) and Michael Wray (Chartered Management Accountant). " And http://web.archive.org/web/20110724195357/http://www.register.charities.govt.nz/CharitiesRegister/CharitySummary.aspx?id=748059c3-0107-e011-bae6-00155d741101 has the charity details.
Thank you, WhisperToMe ( talk) 15:45, 17 July 2013 (UTC)
Please refer this discussion. Some users are arguing that United Nations Human Rights Commission, European Parliament, United States Department of State, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International websites are not reliable sources. They all state direct or alleged involvement of Muslim mob in Gujarat train burning. But the users deny credibility of these sites and want "scholarly" book citations. I can't search google books because of browser problem. But are UN, EU government, US government, Amnesty, Human Rights Watch less credible than some book written by some Professor? neo ( talk) 19:26, 11 July 2013 (UTC)
These sources are potentially usable, even for history, but may be primary sources, so use with great care. Academic sources are also reliable and should usually be preferred even to these official sources from the time. Consult WP:PSTS. WP:HISTRS should also be useful. Itsmejudith ( talk) 10:43, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
"How exactly conclusion based on primary sources is original research?" This is not an appropriate question. Published sources that contain original research are perfectly acceptable sources for Wikipedia articles. It is Wikipedia articles that should not place original research in articles.
"Does governments do less research than academicians while taking diplomatic decisions?" The research by government agencies is sometimes just as good as academicians, but what the government ultimately publish is determined by the politicians, so may be biased and may contain deliberate lies. Of course this may happen with academic sources too, but usually there is less motive, and there are many academic sources to compare. The government is a monopoly. Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:27, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
Emik Avakian died on July 11. May he rest in peace. The only source that I found was a YouTube video that say he died. The youtube video is uploaded by Stepan Partamian who was a leading researcher in the life of Emik Avakian: See here and his book [ http://books.google.com/books?id=Ww1GmwEACAAJ&dq Yes, We Have Too: Contributions of American-Armenians to the United States of America] (Unfortunately its an offline source). Can we just go ahead and call it a RS? Proudbolsahye ( talk) 01:46, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
At English Defence League there was a claim sourced to ABC news which in turn referred to "a report by The Telegraph". Please see Talk:English Defence League#Abcnews and Telegraph sources for details of the article claim and what the sources say. The situation is ambiguous but I feel the article does not properly capture what the sources state. Could someone more familiar with this kind of second hand sourcing take a look please? - 84user ( talk) 14:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Source: Stueck, William W. (1995), The Korean War: An International History, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, p. 196, ISBN 0691037671
Source text: "Most nations of the Arab-Asian group were of similar mind, willing to express support for the initial action in Korea, but determined to avoid commitments that would fundamentally undermine their middle course in the East-West conflict. Eight members of the loosely knit group offered no material aid to the UN enterprise in Korea. India donated a field hospital; but then, as the war lingered on and Nehru and Rau persisted in their efforts at mediation, India sent a similar hospital to the other side as well. US resistance to Arab-Asian attempts at meditation hardened most of the governments in their determination to avoid commitment to the West."
Supported edit: Add India to the medical support section on the Communist side in the Korean War infobox
Current discussions on the Korean War talk page
Other involved parties: User:Brigade Piron
Focus of dispute:
1. Dr. Stueck made an error by stating India sent a field hospital instead of field ambulance to the UN side. Therefore he could be wrong on the amount of aid India sent to the other side as well. Also political histories sources are notoriously poor on military details.
My response: The source of dispute is the Indian stance and belligerence on Korean War, not the military orbat of Indian forces during the Korean War. Thus this dispute clearly falls in the area of political/diplomatic history of the Korean War, and Dr. Stueck is recognized as the leading expert in the area. Dr. Stueck may be wrong on the details of Indian aids sent to the both sides, but his point that India, as part of its foreign policy, sent an identical amount of medical aid to both side in an attempt to stay neutral does carry a lot of weight on the discussion of Indian belligerence. Finally there are other belligerents in the infobox that got included for donating a lot less aids than India ( for example).
2. No other mainstream sources were found during the discussion that repeated Dr. Stueck's claim on Indian medical contributions to the Communist side during the Korean War.
My response: lack of multiple sources repeating Dr. Stueck does not mean Stueck's claim was widely rejected by the majority academics, given Dr. Stueck's high regard in Korean War studies. However, I am seeking community guidance on whether WP:REDFLAG applies in this case. Jim101 ( talk) 13:23, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Am I correct that the locus is merely on the precise nature and amount of aid rather than the fact that India gave similar aid to each side? I consider the distinction, as stated, to be less than substantial enough to reject the source. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
Okay, is there an Indian history expert that can comment on the matter? My research brought me into areas I am very unfamiliar with, like the political careers of Jawaharlal Nehru and the US-Soviet-Indian relations between 1950 to 1960s. I don't dare to disclose my understandings on those topics based on just few hours of browsing book indexes under "I" and none stop Google searches. Jim101 ( talk) 22:31, 18 July 2013 (UTC)
I found [18] which makes clear that "Field Ambulance" does not mean a vehicle but was "(Parachute) Field Ambulance" and had 320 men (another source states 373 men). India did chair the "Neutral Nation Repatriation Commission". The CFI used that same "ambulance." [19] page 129 states that only India and Burma outside the Communist bloc voted "nay" on the UN Resolution condemning China as the aggressor. I suggest this later use of the same forces is what is at issue? Collect ( talk) 08:38, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:RSN says "Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. This includes any website whose content is largely user-generated, including the Internet Movie Database (IMDB), CBDB.com, collaboratively created websites such as wikis, and so forth, with the exception of material on such sites that is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." [20] which is about Rick Still has Rick Still's name as the author. Do we then accept it as a RS without any verification? I removed it at UFO Phil and Rick Still but it was replaced. I've removed it again from the UFO Phil article but then thought I'd come here. Dougweller ( talk) 19:07, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
Don't know if this is an acceptable source where Rick Still clearly states that he plays the UFO Phil character. Comparing the photos of Rick Still and UFO Phil, it's obviously the same guy. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 21:02, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
The article on Ernest Mason Satow currently includes references to several Lulu-published books that were (apparently) originally written by the subject himself, but are probably no longer in print under their original (or any mainstream) publishers. I'm a bit concerned that the page itself was started by the editor who published through Lulu (who is a professor of English at a Japanese university) and so the references may fall under WP:ADVERTISEMENT. I'm not really concerned that the Lulu-published books are being cited as sources, because that doesn't appear to be the case. Ruxton appears to be a good scholar and a productive Wikipedian (I'm not outing him, as his official homepage openly declares Historian to be his Wikipedia account), seeing the name Lulu mentioned so many times in the article on a 19th-century Japanologist is off-putting. 猿丸 太 夫 14:09, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I found this review of Verax (film) from Crikey:
Would Crikey be considered an RS for the purposes of posting a review of a short film? WhisperToMe ( talk) 22:18, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
The Chennai_Express article has been given the following source as a you-tube video. The video is from SUN News , which is one of the big Indian media channels. The video has been officially published by the television in its News channel .
Source : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yFGG8zZkGSs&list=WLo-RQ04tOAUUt9xAMVoM2R8YzX-WBtFzW Article : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chennai_Express
Content from the source : Chennai Express Poster and Trailer that have been released in Twitter and YouTube , are criticized by some film makers of
South India for being deliberately demeaning to Tamil Culture and Tamil Language. The accent used by Deepika resembles
Malayalam accent rather than Tamil, according to them. There is an edit war going on , and the edit war is inappropriately tagged as vandalism with Personal comments on me , which is recorded in the talk page. Hence posting here for second opinion
If one has reasonably strong assurance that the youtube channel is the same as the copyright owners --- yes it is
One clarification - The channel is news channel and the program is a Debate program where some South indian Directors have opined thier thoughts. And yes its a playback .Past show's particlar episode's schedule cant be obtained but the Sun Tv website itsef has link to this program http://www.sunnetwork.in/tv-channel-details.aspx?Channelid=10&channelname=SUN%20NEWS Karthikeyan.pandian ( talk) 17:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
The article Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) begins: Pre-Columbian trans-oceanic contact is interaction between indigenous peoples of the Americas who settled the Americas before 10,000 BC, citation needed and peoples of other continents ( Africa, Asia, Europe, or Oceania), which occurred before the arrival of Christopher Columbus in the Caribbean in 1492. For practical purposes, travel across the Bering Straits, or the former land bridge in the same region are excluded.
The fact tag was added 3 times last night - I removed it twice as I didn't understand why it was added, and each time I asked that it be discussed on the talk page. The editor ignored my request and his/her 3rd edit summary asked me not to play dumb, putting the word 'confused' in scare quotes, and finally (and in the wrong place - it should have been on the talk page) asked where the number was coming from and saying that it should be in the article. That's a bit more helpful although still no excuse. It's true that "significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." but that's not what's happened here. The lead "should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies."
The article is not about when Native Americans reached the Americas. It is about controversies concerning other groups which are alleged to have come to America before 10,000 BCE and 1492 CE. The article does not suggest when Native Americans came to America and there is no academic controversy about there being Native Americans here 12,000 years ago (see Clovis culture).
So there should be no fact tag for 2 reasons:
The date is part of defining the article - if there is a problem with the definition of the article that should be brought up on the talk page. I don't see how WP:LEAD can apply here, this is not a discussion of material that should appear later in the article, it is just defining the article.
The date is not controversial except among Young Earth Creationists. Clovis culture is earlier than this date, and it is 'Clovis first which was what the now pretty much outdated academic controversy was about. WP:VERIFY doesn't seem to require a fact tag no matter where this is placed in the article, especially as it isn't saying when Native Americans arrived. Dougweller ( talk) 09:21, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have added a reference for it. Darkness Shines ( talk) 11:00, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
On Death of Shane Todd, Theinsidefacts keeps adding references such as [ [21]] in his edits [ [22]], then claims that these were "independant report in the public domain. Under WP policy there is no requirement for a source to be referenced specifically by a news agency. The source is quite clearly the author of the report and that has been cited."[ [23]]. Looking at the original source documents (even assuming it is genuine), one an clearly see that it is in fact some form of personal correspondence between the doctor and another party rather than an actual report. I also note that the document seems to have been edited to mask the identity of the party the doctor was corresponding with, which means there's no way to be sure if anything else in the document had been edited prior to uploading. Hope more senior editors and admins can help me out on this, thanks! Zhanzhao ( talk) 03:46, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
Islamic Encyclopedia fashions itself as a non-open, privately edited encyclopedia on Islamic topics, especially biographies of Muslim notables. According to their About Us page, they publish stuff from a number of primary and secondary source books of history and mention works of respected historians like Ibn Khallikan. The thing is, those sources are reliable, but is the cite? Can it be used as a source in biographies of historical Muslim figures? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 08:01, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
Some Orientalists have tried to discredit him. The Brille [sic] Edition of the Encyclopedia of Islam tries to disparage him by saying, “He was the father of Qur’anic exegesis; at a time when it was necessary to bring the Qur’an into accord with the new demand of a society which had undergone profound transformation; he appears to have been extremely skilful in accomplishing this task.” (Art., `Abdullah ibn `Abbas). The hidden meaning is: Ibn `Abbas bent the Qur’anic commentary to confirm the Qur’an with the changing demands of his time. Considering the fact that the Qur’an is a living miracle, but beyond the understanding of superficial minds, poorly educated and trained to think in materialistic terms, the above statement can be excused.
— Islamic Encyclopedia
Once I came across warnings about reliable sources. So I would to ask whether or not Debka files is reliable. Thanks, Egeymi ( talk) 12:20, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
I am currently on the process of writing the "culture" section for the Falkland Islands article improvement project (see User:MarshalN20/Sandbox4). The problem is that not much is mentioned on the culture aside from that it is essentially identical to British culture. I am wondering if the The Bradt Travel Guide on the Falkland Islands (written by Will Wagstaff) would be a reliable sources to use solely on the culture section? I have searched for prior similar cases and the consensus seems to be that each case is different. I wanted to know for sure other thoughts about this prior to using the Wagstaff source in the article. Thanks in advance.-- MarshalN20 | Talk 22:58, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
Dragon Ball Z is host to an unusual and popular meme known as "It's over 9000!" which is a years old cultural icon amongst its fans that has been acknowledged by Funimation itself. At the heart of the matter is sourcing for it. Originally I used a book dedicated to the topic itself, Dragon Ball Z "It's Over 9,000!" When Worldviews Collide by Derek Padula. Padula's work is a self publication with indepth coverage and analysis of the meme and its meaning, popularity and philosophy about the scene it self. While the opinion of the author is not used in any shape or form, the citation exists to accurately depict creation, origin and original media from which it spawned. Padula's work has been reviewed and praised by two other fan sources, Screwattack and Japanator. Screwattack is itself a company "ScrewAttack Entertainment LLC" which has operated for 7 years, with a good deal of popularity, I suspect a review of the book lends some credibility to it. Japanator is another source, sometimes questionable on its own for its publication of rumor as rumor, but Japanator actually interviewed the creator back in 2008 and then upon the unrelated-to-the-site release of Padula's book, did a review on it. The details of the interview did make its place into Padula's work, but it is perhaps the review of the book which is the key point for validation of it. [24] The reviewer states, "Derek Padula has done a stunning service to those looking to turn a scholarly eye to the series to dissect comparisons between the two heroes, their similarities, and key turning points during which we could immediately discern the characters had grown both mentally and physically..." The book itself has been praised in the small quarterly Shadowland Magazine which can be found in book stores and comic shops, all the more to validate the book itself as source by acknowledgement from the community. Padula's previous book was also well received if you don't mind me pointing out.
A second issue remains, where the actual primary source material is "not a reliable source" in the eyes of Ryulong. It is not synthesis to compare the Japanese language work and original English work and note that "Hassen ijou da!" is mistranslated because "Hassen" translates to 8000. And two English dubs from Ocean and Funimation both use the line on their respective releases. Here's where it gets complicated, due to the success of the series, two variations were made for the re-release as Dragon Ball Kai. Funimation produced the "over 9000" for TV and "over 8000" for DVD release, with the immediate lines themselves being different around it as well.
The TV script:
Nappa: Vegeta! Vegeta! What's wrong with you?! Tell me what his power level is! Vegeta: It's over 9000! Nappa: What?! 9000?! You've got to be kidding me, that thing's a piece of junk! - Dragon Ball Z Kai, Episode 21 on TV (Nick Toons in this case)
The DVD script:
Nappa: Vegeta! What does the scouter say about his power level?! Vegeta: It's over 8000! Raah! Nappa: 8000?! C'mon, that can't be right! It must be broken or something. - Dragon Ball Z Kai: "Protect the Dragon Balls! The Namekian's All-Out Attack!" Episode 21 on Funimation DVD.
This different is not a violation of WP:SYN, anyone can look at the two versions and notice the differences. Though I can also point out that the differences in the original Z release comes on 28 of Funimation's dub versus 21 of Ocean sub. I do not see how these "primary sources" are not reliable nor how a book about it, an interview with the creator or other validations including Funimation's own actions as "unreliable". ChrisGualtieri ( talk) 14:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Check out his college website [25] they have it correct of May 21 not May 2. Also, he is my daughter's boyfriend so I know when his birthday is, although I'm sure you can't just take my word for it.
I believe the editor of this document does not understand Wikipedia's own editorial policy or the status of a movie as a document in its own right--
The requested reliable source is the film referred to.
Could someone please add their opinion on one side or other of this discussion.
I would like to ask if http://maplight.org/ is a reliable source. thanks James Michael DuPont ( talk) 11:48, 24 July 2013 (UTC)
Can this page on what is apparently the Tumblr of writer Brian Michael Bendis be used to source the claim about his son. At issue are two points that I request be addressed here:
1. While I find User:Silverseren's comments on Tumblr in this January 2013 RSN discussion to be well-reasoned, I wonder, how do we verify that a given Tumblr account belongs to the person whom it appears to belong to? Twitter has "verified" accounts that are denoted by a blue check mark on the user's page, so that allows us to use Twitter accounts, but how do we do this with Tumblr?
2. Does the fact that they are making claims about a third party---in this case the Wikipedia editor whom he complains keeps removing the unsourced info from his Wikipedia article---mean that using that page would violate the second exclusionary criterion listed at WP:SELFPUB? Nightscream ( talk) 00:25, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
In the page Kabaa, i am trying to clarify my edit [28], but one of the editor seems to be disagreeing, even though the sources 2 sources i have used, were declared to be reliable, in a noticeboard. This time, i would like to know, if any of the following sources are credible?
Capitals00 ( talk) 06:07, 23 July 2013 (UTC)
Zeitgeist: The Movie contains details of a published interview with the filmmaker. The filmmaker claims, through the film's website, that he was misquoted. Are we allowed to quote his public statement, sourced using only the film's website?
The film's official website later contained a statement by Joseph addressing the interview, saying, "At no time did I say anything about "distancing myself" from anything nor did I state anything about exaggerating the facts, outside of the obvious nature of the film's expressive style."
Thanks -- Equazcion (talk) 06:39, 26 Jul 2013 (UTC)
Is The Travel Kernel Reliable enough for use in Invercargill Airport?.-- Anderson I'm Willing To Help 08:32, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
An editor started adding these to articles. I took a look and it looks like a blog to me so it can't be a reliable source. Searching here, I noticed over 50 articles have it linked, so I'm doubting myself and am looking for more opinions. Is it possible to blacklist this site also? DragonZero ( Talk · Contribs) 09:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Source: (in Chinese) Zhang, Song Shan (张嵩山) (2010), Decipher Shangganling (解密上甘岭), Beijing: Beijing Publishing House, ISBN 978-7-200-08113-8
Background on the writer: Zhang Song Shan is currently serving in the Chinese People's Liberation Army as a writer. Appears to be specialized/famous in China for his historical writings/research on the Battle of Triangle Hill. I am currently not aware that this writer had published or recognized for his research on US military or political history, or the history of Korean War in general.
Claims being made: in from pages 295 to page 296 of his book, Zhang linked the event of Battle of Triangle Hill with the events of United States presidential election, 1952 (but he did not clearly state just how exactly does one affect the other).
Reason for inquiry: On Wikipedia:OR_noticeboard#1952_United_States_presidential_election_and_Battle_of_Triangle_Hill and Talk:Battle_of_Triangle_Hill#U.S._elections_backdrop, there is a dispute on whether or not to follow Zhang's narrative in the article Battle of Triangle Hill about the 1952 United States presidential election (mentioning the election without drawing conclusions).
My stance: my gut feeling is to ignore Zhang's claim completely since US election is not his area of expertise and no US sources repeated his claim, but his notion that Battle of Triangle Hill impacted the 1952 US presidential election does appear to be popularly recognized in China (or Chinese editors in this matter). I just want to see where the community stands on this issue. Jim101 ( talk) 20:46, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
The population data of Somalian cities enter the article Somalia via Template:Largest cities of Somalia. It has been complicated to find reliable sources for those (see for example Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 134#World Gazetteer). Recently 2 new sources were proposed with worldwide city data:
At Template talk:Largest cities of Somalia, user:Middayexpress and I have been trying to work out if these are reliable sources. The discussion has focussed on what are the underlying sources for the case of Somalia, and whether they are reliable (as the websites themselves [imo] are not automatically reliable sources, as they seem not to stem from a respected university, institute or government). We could use some ideas from this noticeboard! L.tak ( talk) 19:23, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
I have not been involved with the article, but I suspect that in this case, Know Your Meme is perhaps the best source possible for autonomous sensory meridian response ( diff for context) because they have a reputation for accurately researching the genesis of such neologisms, and an editorial staff experienced in doing so. EllenCT ( talk) 20:19, 28 July 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.
I would like to know whether three studies from the peer-reviewed medical journal Clinical, Cosmetic And Investigational Dermatology published by Dove Medical Press can be used in the Wikipedia article on Morgellons disease.
The three studies in question are:
Because of a dispute among editors at the Morgellons article, dispute resolution was sought, and all editors agreed to abide by the decision made by the dispute mediator (whose username is TransporterMan). TransporterMan, the dispute mediator, decided that the Dove Medical Press articles did not even meet WP:SOURCES, let alone WP:MEDRS. You can read the dispute resolution discussion HERE — click on "show" on that page to view the discussion.
Since I fully agreed to abide by the mediator's decision, I cannot now use these Dove Medical Press studies in the Morgellons article, and I will honor this agreement (until such time as new research is published, at which point, as per the agreement, the decision will need to be reviewed and renewed).
However, I would still like to get a second opinion on the suitability of these three studies for use in the Morgellons article, and thus welcome any input and perspective offered on this. Many thanks for your help.
I wanted to use these three Dove Medical Press studies to support the view that Morgellons disease is a real disease involving certain unusual skin lesions. These studies detail the nature of the skin lesions in Morgellons patients. Drgao ( talk) 17:02, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Further, the appearance of a new source would not undo the decision made on the sources reviewed at the DRN. You agreed to: "if new sources pro or con are developed, by which I mean that they are published for the first time after the decision here, then they can be raised and discussed by either side." (Emphasis in original.) What may be discussed is the new published sources.
If this
tendentious behavior continues we will discuss it at
WP:ANI.
Zad
68
17:29, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
17:58, 25 July 2013 (UTC)Drgao is incorrect when he says, "the decision is only binding until such time as new studies are published, whence the effect of the decision expires." The agreement was, per Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard/Morgellons#Moving forward with C: "It also means that if new sources pro or con are developed, by which I mean that they are published for the first time after the decision here, then they can be raised and discussed by either side." (Emphasis added.) That is, the new sources can be raised and discussed. The agreement for arbitration was that it was a final, permanent, and binding decision between the involved parties for the sources included in the decision insofar as the Morgellons article is concerned.
As for enforcement, everyone also needs to understand that the arbitration agreement, in that same section, also said, "Finally, this agreement is a handshake and obligation of honor, not an enforceable agreement. I'm not an administrator and even if I was there's no provision in policy for enforcing an agreement such as this." I would not be surprised if an administrator would take a clear violation of the agreement into consideration when deciding whether someone was editing tendentiously or not, but as more of a "brick in the wall" than a reason for a tendentiousness violation per se. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 18:12, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
If at some point in the future Morgellons is proven to be caused by infection agents, then those
WP:MEDRS-compliant sources that satisfactorially support that biomedical claim can be used. The future publishing of a reliable article won't retroactively make these three CCID articles reliable.
Zad
68
19:24, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Zad
68
20:17, 25 July 2013 (UTC)As Dbrodbeck said, I answered your question, fully and concisely above. And, as Zad68 rightly points out, that question has been answered numerous times before. You would have understood it if you were familiar with the policies I listed above, especially WP:MEDRS. I don't know what else you expect. Dominus Vobisdu ( talk) 20:48, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
WP:ANI thread: [44] Dbrodbeck ( talk) 13:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
There were no comments on the reliability of Persian Heritage (magazine) except for the two parties.
Party comments at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive_150#Persian Heritage_(magazine). -- Bejnar ( talk) 17:06, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
I was wondering if that is a reliable source to extract information for an article (not copy and paste, but with my own words). I want to use something there in the Adam Clayton article. It is about the news on he getting married. Miss Bono [zootalk] 19:13, 29 July 2013 (UTC)
At Talk:Homosexuality and Roman Catholicism#Reliable source for a statement there is a dispute about the sourcing of what the Holy See's representative to the UN at Geneva is reported to have said. The disputed phrase is "he stated that states ... can and must regulate sexual behavior, comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest". A proposal to modify this to "he stated that states ... can and must regulate sexual behavior, as, for example, they forbid pedophilia and incest" has been rejected. The part of the cited document that has been quoted as the basis for the version with "comparing" is: "Second, for the purposes of human rights law, there is a critical difference between feelings and thoughts, on the one hand, and behavior, on the other. A state should never punish a person, or deprive a person of the enjoyment of any human right, based just on the person's feelings and thoughts, including sexual thoughts and feelings. But states can, and must, regulate behaviors, including various sexual behaviors. Throughout the world, there is a consensus between societies that certain kinds of sexual behaviors must be forbidden by law. Pedophilia and incest are two examples". Esoglou ( talk) 11:39, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
Determining whether a specific source is a "reliable source" for a specific claim is a proper use of this noticeboard. It appears the word "comparing" has several distinct meanings which may not all be supported by the source given. In such a case, the most specific wording attributed to the person being quoted is likely the best wording. If George Gnarph said "autosexuality, heterosexuality, pedophilia, homosexuality and antisexuality are all sexual orientations" then Gnarph has "compared" all of them to each other in the general sense of "listed them as belonging to a set of some sort". In such a hypothetical case, the more correct claim would be "George Gnarph listed a, b, c, and d as all being sexual orientations." Gnarph did not make a specific comparison of the different categories as being equivalent in that case. Again - this is a proper noticeboard for that query. Collect ( talk) 17:55, 27 July 2013 (UTC)
I have seen editors removing reviews by Common Sense Media from articles. They said that the website is unreliable just because it publishes media reviews for parents. I don't see how that makes any sense. The website is not controversial and is known for their reviews, as the article shows. They even review R rated films that are not for kids and those reviews are not bias. SL93 ( talk) 20:52, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Though you not seeing any reason why it would be used is not relevant to being reliable for film reviews. SL93 ( talk) 21:13, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Presuming our article is correct I guess this makes this organization's opinions notable at least. It would still be good to see real examples of citations being deleted.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 11:06, 1 August 2013 (UTC)"According to Common Sense Media’s website, the organization has content distribution contracts with Road Runner, TiVo, Yahoo!, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, DIRECTV, NBC Universal, Netflix, Best Buy, Google, AOL/Huffington Post, Fandango, Trend Micro, Verizon Foundation, Nickelodeon, Bing, Cox Communications, Kaleidescape, AT&T, and NCM.[7] The organization’s current rating system differs from the system used by the Motion Picture Association of America and the Entertainment Software Rating Board.[10] It has received positive support from parents, and it has received support from President Barack Obama, who stated that its rating system favored "sanity, not censorship."[8][9]"
Hi, someone at the reference desk requested a translation of the French Wikipedia article on French painter Michel Bertrand. [46] I would like to make sure that such a translation would survive – I don’t want to go to all the trouble if someone is just going to delete it. The two issues raised by commenters were notability (I will ask that at the other notice board) and reliability – which is why I’m here. I confess I didn’t really understand the issue posted (‘’“what matters for notability is simply whether the references are substantial, in reliably sources, and independent of the subject”’’). Can you help me understand if these sources are reliable? Thanks. 184.147.137.9 ( talk) 21:58, 30 July 2013 (UTC)
1. [47] and [48] – listings on the website of Centre Georges Pompidou, a major library and modern art museum. (ie showing that this artist’s work is exhibited in the Musée National d'Art Moderne.)
2. [49] – brochure for an art festival in 2008 that mentions this artist was exhibiting.
3. [50] – google books result; catalogue for a collection in the Musée d'art moderne Saint-Etienne (mentioned in the en wikipedia Saint-Étienne article) that apparently includes at least one mention of this artist’s name )(I can’t access the book).
Thank you all, very helpful. BTW, he is a sculptor/painter, not a fencer as far as I know, but he did teach at l'Ecole des Beaux-Arts in Perpignan. And the French wikipedia article does mention he had two write-ups in a newspaper called L'Independant. However, since they were in 1976 and 1988, I doubt I'd find them online. Certainly the Perpignan paper of that name doesn't appear to have online archives. Is it going to be a problem just to translate the assertion that they exist? 184.147.137.9 ( talk) 12:24, 31 July 2013 (UTC)
Again, thanks all. Turning into more work than a simple translation! Appreciate your advice. 184.147.137.9 ( talk) 21:01, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Advice, please! Can either of the following be considered reliable sources for details of the private life of Maximillion Cooper:
I know what I think, but would value the opinion of others. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:28, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
An article in a peer-reviewed academic journal Computer Music Journal has a study comparing the performance of various optical music recognition software products. Other reviews in Maximum PC, PC World and Music Educators Journal all say the software has a terrible user interface, but it basically works and is the best option available. This article says differently that other products perform better.
The author of the journal article is from the University of Florence, which develops a competing product, 03MR, which is one of the products it says performs better. The author therefor has a substantial conflict of interest.
I am hesitant to use a source authored by a competing "vendor", which unsurprisingly says that their software outperformed competitors, something other sources don't seem to agree with. However it is published by a very reputable source and User: Justlettersandnumbers brings up a good point that presumably the journal has taken the conflict of interest of the author into consideration and found the information still to be worthwhile. Thoughts on how and if we should use this source? CorporateM ( Talk) 14:32, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
I am working on the article for Physician Orders for Life-Sustaining Treatment, and in the timeline there, someone had referenced the governor's veto of a specific bill in the legislature. It made reference to a press release by the State in question, and I could not find another more clearly independent RS on GN that made reference to this particular veto (which it appears was overridden).
I did find a reference to this specific veto on the state bar association website.
My questions are as follows:
Thanks in advance for any help you can offer. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ] # _ 22:26, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
The article has claims on the new president elect of Iran's PhD degree. I am wondering if it is considered reliable for WP:BLP purposes. Thanks.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 06:19, 2 August 2013 (UTC)
Is History of Assam by E.A Gait, published in 1906 can be considered as reliable source, when newer books challenges its content. I also like to point towards earlier recommendation here and response it got. Thanks भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 15:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)
The Ripon Society maintains a website called the Ripon Advance, which issues posts and press releases. User:SandraJacoby15 has been inserting content from these releases into WP articles. Many sound promotional (e.g., [56], [57]); there also seem to be some copyright violations ( [58], [59]). Can a "centrist Republican think tank" be considered a reliable, neutral source? 71.139.152.154 ( talk) 15:40, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
Sources are not required to be neutral or objective to be reliable. Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources However, per Andy, just because they are reliable (for at least their own opinions) doesn't mean they merit inclusion, if their statements are not discussed elsewhere. One possible exeption would be if they are a placeholder/representative for a notable viewpoint, even if they themselves are not notable. (In that case one should be able to point out others who also hold the same viewpoint as well) Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:43, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A video of an investigative TV documentary posted at Hadrei Hadarim web portal has been linked as a reference to cite a certain fact. The relevant quote is mentioned in passing in the film by one of the journalists. 1) Is this video a copyright violation? 2) Can we use quotes in such films as RS? (The article in question does not make reference to this specific episode or news channel.) Chesdovi ( talk) 00:38, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute at Template:Did you know nominations/Press coverage of the Armenian Genocide as to whether or not the article in question meets NPOV. At present, the debate is focussed on whether the article's sources are reliable. In particular, this link from a newslist called groong has been questioned. I would appreciate some input here from uninvolved parties as to whether this website and this link in particular can be considered reliable per the usual policies. Thank you, Gatoclass ( talk) 14:32, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Discussion (or the attempt at it) has been going on for some time now at Haredi Judaism. It relates to additions made by a novice editor User:Jonathan.bluestein. I wish to bring to attention at this point only one issue: That of using images as RS. Is there ever a circumstance when images can be used to cite text? If so, please can someone confirm when they can be used.
Please see Talk:Haredi Judaism#Using images as RS. I had removed the image of the swimming pool which was being used as a reference. It was re-addedby User:Jonathan.bluestein until he removed it himself: [60].
Now he insists on using another image as a source: [61]. I had removed it ([ [62]) and he has just re-added it ( [63]) after replying to my post at talk. Chesdovi ( talk) 16:53, 5 August 2013 (UTC)
A user is repeatedly adding ReasonTV as a source for discussing the "scientific consensus" about GMOs in an article about the March Against Monsanto. A discussion on the talk page found no consensus for its reliability nor for adding it to the article, but the user will not recognize any consensus and continues to add the link to the article. [65] We already have a good secondary source from the Associated Press that covers the same material without the added opinion or baggage. [66] The ReasonTV source self-identifies as a "video editorial", commentary that exists solely to make fun of the protesters. But, the editor is not actually using the source in the article, the editor is citing the blurb about the source, which is somewhat disingenuous. Further, the site itself is funded by a "right-libertarian research organization that...produces papers and studies to support a particular set of values." Additionally, the source has monetary connections to the topic of the article (Monsanto) that is under criticism (see the linked discussion). To summarize, the editor who keeps adding this source isn't actually citing the video but a blurb about the video. And, we already have a reliable secondary source from the AP that adequately covers the scientific consensus. Since the editor will not follow the consensus on the talk page, I am looking for further opinions here. If you actually watch the video, you will discover that this is basically a joke and far from a quality source. Viriditas ( talk) 07:21, 6 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it appropriate for a website that is self published by an individual to present his/her personal point of view to be included in the External Links section? Rev107 ( talk) 09:29, 6 August 2013 (UTC)