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 150 | ← | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | → | Archive 160 |
Over the years, apparently unhappy with the figures from the US Census quoted in Azerbaijani American, a number of editors have tried to add other numbers, an order of magnitude larger that the Census figures, showing that there are more Azerbaijanis in the U.S. than the Census reports. Mostly these figures have come from obviously biased sources with a mission to promote the interests of Azerbaijanis, and have been removed for that reason.
The latest attempt is sourced to the a survey done in 2005 by the Iranian Studies Group at MIT. While the ISG describes itself in this manner:
The Iranian Studies Group at MIT (ISG) is a non-partisan, non-profit, academic organization with the aim of promoting Iranian civil society through conducting research on issues related to Iranian native and expatriate societies. Our research projects focus on the cultural, social, economic, and political development of the Iranian society. By actively publicizing our findings in a format that is accessible for the community at large, we aim to bridge the gap between research, public knowledge, and policy-making. [1]
it also says:
ISG is recognized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Association of Student Activities
which means that it is essentially a student organization.
I'd like some opinions on whether this organization should be considered a reliable source, and on whether the online survey behind the numbers is legitimate. The Survey Team consisted of two PhD candidates, a sophomore, and an "undergraduate", and their Advisory Group consist primarily of "Community Activists" and POV organizations. My feeling is that the survey does not appear to be academically rigorous, and probably should not be considered to be a reliable source, so I've removed the material from the article, until a consensus is reached here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This is regarding Steve Coogans personal life, and the quote is for when he entered rehab. I understand that a gossip tabloid isn't reliable and goes against the BLP rules, but if the individual person has no problem being frank and openly provides and discusses such information, isn't it reliable as a source. It isn't being intrusive or spreading a claim, it is reporting a fact, and isn't inappropriately discussing thr persons life, as they have spoken publicly about this themselves. I'd appreciate the input. Thanks - Jak Fisher ( talk) 01:57, 21 August, 2013 (UTC)
But these "facts" are included in many articles on wikipedia, a point which you seem to be avoiding. So why aren't they appropriate then, if they are mentioned so often on wikipedia. - Jak Fisher ( talk)
Note that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Steve Coogan (2). -- John ( talk) 05:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, WP is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used to source itself. Nevertheless, User:Pigsonthewing insists that it can be "used as a reference when describing its own actions". As this is a long-time editor with many edits, I was wondering whether I was mistaken and Wikipedia can indeed be used as a reference. Comments welcome here or on the article talk page. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on finding reliable sources for List of national symbols. Is http://targetstudy.com/qna/what-are-the-national-symbols-of-afghanistan.html a reliable source for the national symbols of Afghanistan? They don't seem to cite their sources, but they are supposedly some sort of education-ish web site in India. The info presented on their site looks legit, and I checked their page http://targetstudy.com/qna/what-are-the-national-symbols-of-india.html against reliable sources, and info there checks out. Does anyone happen to know of any (other) reliable sources for the national symbols of Afghanistan (i.e. national flower, national bird, national animal, etc., not just flag and anthem)? I can't find any mention of any such thing on their government web sites. Wilhelm Meis ( ☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone with some music knowledge care to give an opinion about whether the website http://www.operanostalgia.be/ is a RS? I'm having difficulty finding information about a deceased singer outside of a couple of newspaper obituaries, and this website appears to fill in the biographical gaps a bit. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm writing here because I came across an article for PROD, Nowhere Man. Sounds simple right? Well, first I noticed that the article had already been PRODed, so I had to remove that PROD. A look at the claims of sourcing and notability on the talk page showed that a lot of the sources were unusable in one context or another. Many of the quotes were insanely brief and were one-off lines, meaning that they can't show notability as they're trivial sources. Others I couldn't find at all and since the person claiming notability sort of misrepresented the weight of the quotes they listed, there's good reason to suspect how in-depth the other reviews/quotes actually were. I did find some sources, but I also found that the author ( John M. Green) has written for a good many newspapers such as The Age and The Australian. That means that of course, any reviews or articles from them would be a primary source. However there is also the problem that the company that owns The Age also owns the Sydney Morning Herald. Does that make any sources from the SMH unusable since they're owned by the same company? I know that when I searched for sources on the sites for TA and SMH, the hit results were the same. I did find what I thought were enough sources to merit an article for Green, so I made that article and merged information from his publishing house Pantera Press into it. I noticed that an article for one of his authors, Sulari Gentill, needed work, so I began cleaning that as well since it looked like a spam article. However I then noticed that she works for ABC, which is one of the news sources that has provided a lot of coverage for Green.
So... the problem here is what, if any, of the sources are ultimately usable? Can we use any of the ABC stuff like this if stuff like this shows that one of his people works for one of the ABC branches? It's a little convoluted, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
in the article Fastest_growing_religion reference 35 links to a pdf file on the yale website
http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf
there is only one reference provided on the bottom of page 3 for the entire paper, no author is provided, and there is no Kennedy listed on the faculty of the macmillan center initiative on religion, politics and society Coasttrip ( talk) 02:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is so much arguing and debate on the ICOC talk page, and for a long time a lot of the links in the ICOC article were dead links. I don't know who is an authority on the ICOC. I don't know if any of the people that have modified the article or posted on the ICOC talk page are ICOC members or not. I am a former member of the ICOC, and to me, the ICOC article is confusing because the ICOC is such a secretive organization that I have no idea who is an accurate source and/or authority on the ICOC. When I first read the ICOC article it had a lot of information that was opinion and unverifiable. A lot of the information about the structure and facts on the ICOC are still unverifiable. Sometimes the ICOC article reads like an advertisement for the ICOC.
Qewr4231 ( talk) 06:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some dispute as to whether AnimeCons.com is considered reliable or not for referencing attendance figures. The article that its being used on is List of attendance figures at anime conventions, and is the primary source for the article, referencing the majority of the article's attendance figures.
First of all, the website has a standing policy, to "not list any information which cannot be verified with the event's web site. This includes guest listings, programming, and registration rates." However, the website is also user-edited, and the information can be updated by anyone at anytime without a login, as evidenced at Ohayocon 2008's page which has a Update Information for Ohayocon 2008 link at the bottom of the page. So there is no way to verify if the information listed on the website came from the event's website or if it was just added by by someone else. The website has also not demonstrated a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.-- 十 八 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I
searched "AnimeCons.com" in animenewsnetwork and all relevant results concern only press releases or forum posts. As i can tell "AnimeCons.com" was never used as a source for any less than 10 times between in 2006 and 2010 for news or article in animenewsnetwork. update : i made a more refined search using
this search. Sorry my googlefoo is a bit rusty --
KrebMarkt (
talk) 19:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I also did
the same with about.com and all results concern Comics & Anime Conventions where it's only mentioned in an Elsewhere on the Web paragraph. Again AnimeCons.com isn"t used a source.
Bottom line neither animenewsnetwork nor about.com use "AnimeCons.com" as a source for their news or articles --
KrebMarkt (
talk) 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I also think that animecons.com is unreliable take in case AM², animecons.com marked it as cancelled with no other sources stating this as fact nor the primary source saying anything about it. It is dubious at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
ANimecons is like a news website e.g cnn, bbc in the sense that they just parrot what other sources say. All their info is based on a source, if the soruce is not reliable they wont put it on their website as stated in their policy. Their info is generally correct and matches primary sources, why not leave it at that?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I am the creator of AnimeCons.com. Although we do accept user submissions, we do not post any submissions without verifying the information. If someone sends in a new date and location for a convention, we won't post it unless the date and location is posted on the convention's own site or the date comes from a very reliable source at the convention (like direct from someone we know as the convention chairman...but not from someone who we don't know or is just someone like some random security staffer). Our user submission form is ONLY used to alert us to changes (rather than having to constantly check every convention's site every day for every possible change!) Consider it a "tip". Once we get that information, we'll go to the convention's site, verify it, and post it if it checks out. We reject A LOT of submissions. Often a guest will say they're attending a convention and try to update their profile. That may be true, but we won't post it until the convention itself announces them. Our attendance numbers are from multiple sources including announced at closing ceremonies at the con and one of our staffers heard it personally, a press release from the con, a submission from a reliable staff member (chairman, head of registration, head of PR, etc.), or from the convention's web site. We sometimes get attendance numbers from random people citing no source or Wikipedia and we ignore those. (Although if Wikipedia points to a reliable source like a page on the convention's site that we didn't notice, we'll use that.) We don't publish our sources since about half the time it's submitted from a convention staffer and we don't want to give out their e-mail addresses...but the sources ARE tracked in our database, just not exposed. -- PatrickD ( talk) 17:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian newspaper said that a recent document of the Holy See "described gay sex as inhuman". The document itself does not make this statement explicitly. Is the newspaper report a reliable source for saying in Wikipedia: "The document said that gay sex was inhuman", as here? Or is it only a reliable source for something on the lines of "a newspaper interpreted the document as saying gay sex was inhuman", as here? See also an initial discussion here. Esoglou ( talk) 07:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It's Contaldo80, and yes I do. Even if we did not have the Guardian article we would still be justified in making the statement in the article that the document said that gay sex was inhuman. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the word 'inhuman' does not apply. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Are sources from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; [8], [9], Astrophysics Data System; [10] and the American Institute of Physics [11]; [12] reliable? the sources support the statement that "the theory was introduced on some conferences". please see also Talk:Heim_theory#revert_august_17th.thanks for any comments.-- Gravitophoton ( talk) 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Article attracts a lot of pov editing. It looks here [16] as though the editor is referencing himself - I can't see anything on the website link and in any case it would have to be attributed. Not sure about the category change either but that isn't an RSN issue. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
A 2013 study by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom found that Pakistani Hindus are the worst victims of rape.
The above mentioned news article (source) cites this report for its claim, which further cites some blogs and news sources, some of which don't even say that the victims was raped. So can it be cited to make such a claim? -- SMS Talk 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, could I ask this group if these references, this one and this one are acceptable for an encyclopidia such as this. They could not be described as in any way academic? Would it be possible to link this page to article "talk pages" as I had to follow a number of links to get here. -- Dr Daly ( talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Though in regards to Abebooks - it is a description of the WST organisation's own annual that they have for sale. How can that not be grounds for a good make-shift or reliable source? Mabuska (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Ancestry of Elizabeth II has a section that says "Descent before Conrad the Great is taken from fabpedigree.com and may be inaccurate." Should we be using this source? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I've discovered a three-figure-plus number pages using the Google Maps home page as a reference; and others using specific Google Maps URLs; and others citing specific locations on that site. Please see this discussion, about how to resolve this. If there's a better place to notify colleagues interested in referencing, than this noticeboard, please drop me a talkpage note, and/ or copy this notice there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a PHD candidate researching the NGR Incident and other similar episodes (committed by ROK or KPA forces), who has read English and Korean documents on this, and visited and spoken to survivors and their families, I can shed some light on this. Contrary to WeldNeck's observations that critcisms of Bateman are based solely on Hanley's personal animosity, there are a number of obvious flaws in the book which render it suspicious. Furthermore, the Bateman/Hanley debate is well known to scholars of Korean War massacres, and Bateman's book is seldom used for a number of reasons, a few of which are as follows:
1. He did not visit or contact any of the victims from the massacre, nor does he consult any Korean government sources. Basic standards of objectivity suggests that this is a rather dubious approach to scholarship. Most scholars who cannot access a foreign language at least have the foresight to use an Research Assistant. In the debate that Hanley describes, Bateman excuses this on the grounds that he has a family, not a lot of money, etc. As a grad-student who is in a similar situation, I can tell you that this excuse would not be accepted by my PHD defence committee.
2. He claims that it is certain that guerrillas were among the refugees. This is a minority viewpoint within the veterans' testimony (in the US ARMY NGR report for example), and non-existent in the victims' version. While it is certainly plausible that fear of guerrilla infiltration was a major motivating factor in the massacre (as it is in the case of most civilian killings), the evidence for the actual existence of guerrillas is weak.
3. He claims without any evidence that the survivors all suffer from group think. Again, since he did not interview any of them, one is left to wonder how he arrived at this judgment.
4. He ignores (or didn't bother to do enough research) evidence of a number of memos, documents, and vet testimonials suggesting that a tacit, if not official, policy was in place by the last week of July to shoot refugees deemed suspicious. Most glaring is the absence of the "Muccio letter" (uncovered by Sahr Conway-Lanz). I would encourage readers to read Sarh-Conway Lanz's treatment of this issue published in the Journal of Diplomatic History. After reading this piece, it is difficult to take Bateman's work seriously, regardless of one's political persuasions. The reviews that WeldNeck refers to were all published prior to Lanz's work. He also does not mention that the 7th Cavalry journal was missing from the US archives, yet he claims that there is no evidence that kill orders existed. This is either remarkably careless scholarship or a deliberate distortion, given that other journals from similar locales were uncovered by the AP team indicating an understood policy to fire on refugees.
5. His low and inconsistent estimate of those killed (35 at times, 18-70 at others) does not appear to be based on any actual findings. While it is inevitable there is debate and ambiguity concerning the actual number of those killed, Bateman in his debate with Hanley comments that he arrived at this number through a "Ballpark" estimate. This is rather careless. In 2005, the "No Gun Ri Incident Review Report" was commissioned and determined the total number of victims to be 218 (150 killed, 13 missing, 55 disabled). This number was arrived at by searching censuses, family registers, visiting graves of families, victim testimonials, and a detailed, multi-step verification process. It has also uncovered the specific identity of many of those who died, and they have been officially registered with the South Korean government. While no methodology is perfect, this is clearly more useful than a "ballpark" estimate.
One of the above flaws alone ought to render any work of research seriously compromised. When taken as a whole, however, it is impossible for an impartial observer to claim that Bateman's work constitutes a legitimate work of scholarship, suitable as resource for an institution as integral to public understanding as Wikipedia.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BW5530 (
talk •
contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2013
I will reproduce what was on the original post: A discussion is currently ongoing about the reliability of LtCol Robert Bateman’s book No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident
The book is published by Stackpole Books and has been well received. Some reviews:
AP author, Bateman critic, and article contributor Charles Hanley claims he’s is not a reliable source for the following reasons:
I discount (in part) Hanley’s opinion on the subject because he seems to have a real grudge against Bateman. From a SF Gate article about the feud between the two:
Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. The letter is the kind of dark threat that gives free speech experts the chills -- "an effort at prior restraint," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists -- not to mention the fact that in this case, there is a certain reversal of roles. "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable."
I had actually brought this subject up at the Conflict of Interest Forum, but no one had any input. WeldNeck ( talk) 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to cite emails on Wikipedia? I received an email from a person and I would like to use it as a reference in an article about him. The information I want to add is the date of birth of Mr. Franz Gastler. I know we should only use "reliable, third-party published sources", but no source has such info. — Bill william compton Talk 04:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a website that has political leanings, but as WP:RS instructs "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.", and clarifies "the word "'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings
and even with other occasions where OpEdNews may have been disallowed, I thought to bring the question here as each instance is different, and I am using the opinion of the writer/journalist and not that of the website.
In the article on the controversial film Money as Debt, it was used to source opinions in the reception section:
Thank you, Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
...specially in seeing that the above editor was successful in having the article on OpEdNews deleted. As it is, the article which raised this question has numerous other sources and looks to be a solid keep whether the nomination is withdrawn or no.
And while I still feel that guideline instructs that the Congressman's opinion should be citable under WP:RSOPINION, the situation here became one of judging the publisher and ignoring the author... no matter the instructions of applicable guideline... and when any publisher is considered so bad, we may ignore WP:RS's telling us that reliable source refers to either 1) "the piece of work itself" (the article, book), 2) "the creator of the work" (the writer, journalist), OR 3) "the publisher" of the worksource... and BECAUSE the work and opinion were published in a poor source, that placement taints any consideration that this congressman's opinion might have merit. Funny too is that had this been a Joe Bananas review published in Variety or Washington Post, we have no issues whatsoever. No wonder Kucinich has only 90 "likes" at the OpEdNews website. (LOL) Thanks all. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there any rationale for these sources to be rejected?
full citations
|
---|
<ref name="McCarthy1995">{{cite book|author=Justin McCarthy|title=Death and exile: the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1ZntAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=1 May 2013|year=1995|publisher=Darwin Press|isbn=978-0-87850-094-9}}</ref><ref name="Carmichael2012">{{cite book|author=Cathie Carmichael|title=Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans: Nationalism and the Destruction of Tradition|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ybORI4KWwdIC|accessdate=1 May 2013|date=12 November 2012|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-47953-5}}<br/>"During the period from 1821 to 1922 alone, Justin McCarthy estimates that the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims led to the death of several million individuals and the expulsion of a similar number."</ref><ref name="Press2010">{{cite book|author=Oxford University Press|title=Islam in the Balkans: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Kck_-B7MubIC&pg=PA9|accessdate=1 May 2013|date=1 May 2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-980381-1|pages=9–}}</ref> </small><ref name="McCarthy1983">{{cite book|author=Justin McCarthy|title=Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UyFwQgAACAAJ|accessdate=24 August 2013|year=1983|publisher=New York University Press|isbn=978-0-8147-5390-3}}</ref><ref name=Chatty>{{cite book|last=Chatty|first=Dawn|title=Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East|year=2010|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521817929|page=86|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=cefhBwMRTDIC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=At+the+end+of+the+war,+nearly+1.2+million+Muslims+in+western+Anatolia+had+died&source=bl&ots=UIxVcKSj79&sig=ifymEINzdTXBLDouB2zfWu0lEJQ&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=O37tUcSSH4nctAa72IDYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=At%20the%20end%20of%20the%20war%2C%20nearly%201.2%20million%20Muslims%20in%20western%20Anatolia%20had%20died&f=false|quote=At the end of the war, nearly 1.2 million Muslims in western Anatolia had died. Of the Anatolian Greeks, more than 3 13,000 died.}}</ref> |
See relevant discussion: Talk:List_of_massacres_in_Turkey#McCarthy.27s_reliability Cavann ( talk) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether this site fits our definition of a reliable source. Comments welcome. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 08:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
The
Depleted Uranium article has a lot of content about health impacts. I'm concerned that some of the sourcing fails
WP:MEDRS. Is a John Pilger column in Counterpunch a reliable source, or even a MEDRS, for cancer rates in Iraq? The disputed content is:
Iraqi doctors compare the cancer rates (projected to touch 50% in some areas) with the cancer epidemic after the nuclear strikes against Japan, with one US military physicist describing the use of DU shells as "a form of nuclear warfare."
The source is here: [25] bobrayner ( talk) 10:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've still not heard anything as to why Pilger is no good. You obviously
don't like him for some reason or other, but that's hardly germane.
"one US military physicist describing the use of DU shells as 'a form of nuclear warfare.'"—That's a direct quote, not Pilger's interpretation of some paper or other or speculation in lieu of the same.
The crux if the matter is this: in the face of refusal by US–UK to undertake any studies, why shouldn't the views of Iraqi doctors and others be aired? And why shouldn't a Pilger article be used to source their views? LudicrousTripe ( talk) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Why not just rely on high quality peer reviewed material and leave the yellow journalism (and its interpretation of journal articles) out of the article? WeldNeck ( talk) 18:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if this non-existent interpretation you speak of were going on, following your line about not being allowed to use media reporting on journal articles would mean undertaking a truly awesome mass deletion of sourcing from Wikipedia, since such media reporting is used all the time without complaint. LudicrousTripe ( talk) 22:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
704 search results, you say! You didn't even, for example, put depleted uranium in double quotes! That alone more than halves your results. Here's an example of one of your 704 search results for depleted uranium and effects on civilian populations: "Natural and depleted uranium in the topsoil of Qatar: Is it something to worry about?" Qatar? Just about as irrelevant as you can get when the studies need to be of cities in Iraq. Quite aside from which your results will also pick up all the results of those on military personnel. So claiming 704 search results is rather misleading.
Anyway, overall, I have to concede. I'll go through Google scholar and other places, see what I can come up with. LudicrousTripe ( talk) 07:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
There is a question as to whether the above violates our policy on reliable sources. Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm dealing with a rather... passionate editor over at the Ilias Kasidiaris article who is working from some, at least in my view, rather odd interpretations of wikipedia policy. It would be much appreciated if you could examine this article on the hope not hate website and let me know if you'd be happy that the second image presented there would be a reasonable source for stating that Mr Kasidiaris has a nice big swastika on his arm. Thanks in advance, everyone. Dolescum ( talk) 17:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Should Exceptional People Magazine be used as a major source in Raul Julia-Levy article? It's an odd BLP article anyway, with a film director who a NY Times story in 2005 (which isn't in the article) says the BLP subject is actually an impostor called Salvador Fuentes. The whole thing is probably a BLP nightmare. But just on the one question, that magazine, Exceptional People Magazine should it be half the BLP's sources? In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Some anonymous IP editors want to include the text below in the article Monoamine oxidase inhibitor, in the section, List of MAOIs. I do not believe that the Journal of Student Research is a reliable source. I have opened a discussion on it here
Lemon Balm(ref)Natalie Harrington (2012). "Harmala Alkaloids as Bee Signaling Chemicals". Journal of Student Research. 1 (1): 23–32.(/ref)
The text is supported by an article in the Journal of Student Research, the mainpage for which is here. I do not think anything from this journal should be considered a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Editorial policy, scope, etc is here. This is a journal of articles by students; the editorial page is not clear but one assumes the reviewers are other students. This is not professional science. Please weigh in! Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this acceptable? When it has been concluded that a work is not a reliable source, can it then be moved to the further reading section? The manual of style seems to have very little in the way of guidance other than it being a list of "editor-recommended publications".
On art game, editors are recommending a self-published work by a non-expect, who has never been independently published. I've tried to remove it, but it got reverted. If "further reading" really is as anything goes as "editor-recommended", I'm not sure I can do anything else. Despite the work being self-published and given no coverage in reliable sources, it is held in very high regard by Wikipedians. - hahnch e n 01:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The source is quite clearly unreliable. Or else Thibbs would not have to argue that WP:RS does not apply to opinion pieces, and that we should set aside policy of WP:SPS that self-published authors must be established experts who have been published by reliable third-party publications.
That "comprehensive 104 page criticism" that Thibbs describes, is self-published, has not been reviewed. In it's entire publication history, it has been cited only once, in a paper which described it as "a lengthy, homophobic, pseudo-intellectual screed". That's what the only reliable source thinks of the book our editors have so tirelessly promoted.
In fact, the "further reading" section was created solely to promote this self-published work. - hahnch e n 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly the author's views have been published in RSes where they have been the subject of discussion (both in praise of and in opposition to). SPS doesn't effect a bar for opinion based references that are not cited. This one is merely included in a Further Reading section per consensus, in the interest of NPOV, and based on the fact that the author has gained a degree of notability by being cited by, discussed, and praised by dozens of RSes. You've paid lip service to concerns regarding reliability but you are anxious for some reason to avoid applying WP:RS (where WP:RSOPINION is clearly the closest on point). Instead you prefer to use WP:V's section on SPSes, recurrently comparing this source to a pseudoscientific source on the physics of time where SPS would indeed be closest on point. The Kierkegaard source is an opinion piece. It's written by a repeatedly RS-cited author. It's the most in-depth work on the topic of art game criticism currently available. It's being included in the interest of neutrality and it's being placed unreffed at the end of the article in a small "further reading" section. The consensus for this compromise (the third suggested) was achieved after a month of your battlegrounding the issue. We're now discussing matters at the fifth (!!) talk page you've expanded to in an apparent attempt to fish for support. Is this really your best effort at collaborating constructively with your peers, Hahnchen? - Thibbs ( talk) 22:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Could something from here be used as a valid source? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52880310 Z07x10 ( talk) 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Can the various Youtube links cited as references in Dan Meyer (performer) be regarded as reliable sources for the details of the life and achievements of the subject? My own inclination is to remove them all forthwith, but I'd like to get the opinion of others before I do that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hagen Troy whether a page such as this, posted on Straits Times Communities, should be regarded as a reliable source for the article on Hagen Troy, but has also raised the question of whether that site should in general be considered reliable. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to know if a Facebook post by Valor por Tamaulipas may be considered a reliable source. Valor por Tamaulipas is a Facebook page ran by an anonymous citizen journalist that routinely posts risk situations in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. Many media outlets have used Valor por Tamaulipas's posts as information in their news coverages (see sources on the article for more info). For example, Proceso (magazine) used information from the FB page to confirm that a shootout that left over 40 dead in northern Mexico was caused by the killing of a local warlord. [27] [28] If the media uses Valor por Tamaulipas's posts as reliable, can we do too? I'll make sure to include "According to Valor por Tamaulipas, ..." Thanks. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 02:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
source in question is used in the article several times in article Employee stock ownership plan. The paper is someone's research based on their review of primary and secondary sources, although our policies seem to indicate that prior publication is expected. The source is used to support points in "some people say..." "scholars say..." . Some sources within this source, such as NCEO.org(think tank) and esca.us(lobbying group) as described in reliable media like CNN Money and BusinessWeek are clearly biased.
" Scholars estimate that annual contributions to employees of S ESOPs total around $14 billion"
"ESOPs were developed as a way to encourage capital expansion and economic equality. Many of the early proponents of ESOPs believed that capitalism’s viability depended upon continued growth, and that there was no better way for economies to grow than by distributing the benefits of that growth to the workforce"
"One study estimates that the net U.S. economic benefit from S ESOP savings, job stability and productivity totals $33 billion per year"
Should unpublished working paper that cites think tank and advocates be used for supporting claims of advantages, specifically the ones made above. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 12:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Is Webster's Third New International Dictionary a reliable source for supporting entries in a list such as List of ethnic slurs? The thread is Talk:List of ethnic slurs#Dubious. Rivertorch ( talk) 16:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some dispute over the appropriateness of certain sources used for the number of Serbs. Two editors in particular have been engaged in an edit war over whether the sources are appropriate, with one saying they are unreliable because they are nationalist, the other claiming they are valid. The article has since been locked (expires on the 9th), and with some persuasion a bit of discussion has taken place, but it has already descended into personal attacks so I don't really have much faith in the ability of the involved editors to solve it. I am afraid that once the block expires, the edit warring will just continue. I don't think I can contribute much to this personally, I have tried mostly to mediate the discussion. So I hope that someone who knows more about these issues can help steer things in a more productive direction. I think it's best if the discussion is continued at Talk:Slavs#Sources for number of Slavs. CodeCat ( talk) 00:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The following has again been deleted from the Gospel of Matthew
However, Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey and the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are said to be on the fringe of Biblical scholarship and NOT reliable sources. Particular hostility seems reserved for Ehrman.
Requests
I have supplied links and I am available to answer any questions. Thanks, Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi John, glad to have your input. As always you make a number of good points. However, I do not think WP:TE and WP:FORUMSHOPPING apply here. At the Matthew talk page on several occasions it was argued that the trustworthiness of Papias re the Hebrew Gospel was a fringe theory. That is why it was raised at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It was decided that because of the large number of sources that raise the trustworthness of Papias issue, that Wikipedia:Fringe theories should not apply. Most agreed with User:Shii that a "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See diff, diff, diff and diff )
With the fringe theory issue resolved the debate shifted to the reliable sources issue where you debated User:Smeat75 and User:Ignocrates over the past month. I must say you held your own.
Please read this.
|
---|
I have not looked in at wikipedia for a few months for various reasons but did so today and see this discussion. I must say that in my opinion John Carter's statements about Bart Ehrman do not show a grasp of the policy he quotes, WP:RS, which states at the very beginning "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Ehrman is certainly "authoritative" on his subjects and the information from my edit in April quoted above is now a little out of date as he has two more forthcoming books on the New Testament to be published by Oxford University Press,[ [31]]. It is disturbing to me that a powerful admin such as I believe John Carter to be seems to think he can decide that a respected authority with seventeen books published by OUP is a "questionable" source because he writes "popular books". It seems to me from what John Carter says that his attitude is really a case of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and therefore he thinks it should not be here. Regards, Smeat75 ( talk) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Fyi, the issue re Ehrman was already raised at RSN as well as FTN. John Carter seems to have a massive problem with WP:I DON'T LIKE IT coupled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"Like I said, it is, despite the implicit (or in the case of one person fairly explicit) to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines. If you have serious questions " Yes, I have a serious question,. What does that previous sentence mean? It is incoherent. " Yes, some of Ehrman's work, including a lot of academic journal articles, are secondary, and we favor them. But, except perhaps in the bibliography sections of articles, we prefer where possible secondary sources " That doesn't make any sense either - "A lot of his work is secondary but we prefer secondary sources?" Eh? I note that once again you have compared the work of probably the leading NT scholar of today to comic books and if you think Ehrman just repeats things in his books that he has got out of other books you need to read Ehrman's works.Also I did not "forumshop", I joined discussions you were taking part in in two places. Smeat75 ( talk) 02:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
|
It was at the conclusion of this debate (I even remember some other discussions with User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz) that I sought help here carefully following all WP policy guidelines. My position is that Casey, Ehrman and Blackwells are clearly reliable sources. The main issue is to what degree do they support the trustworthiness of Papias re Matthew's early account in Hebrew (Aramaic).
- And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.
- This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)
Issues
Where conservative scholars (and for that matther
user:John Carter and friends) go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about our Gospel of Matthew when he is really talking about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. British historian Maurice Casey comes to the same conclusion.
- Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
- It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)
It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. On the other extreme are those who believe the Gospel of Matthew is a Christian deception as it had nothing to do with Matthew because the Hebrew Gospel spoken of by Papias never existed.
All of the following tertiary sources discuss the trustworthiness of the Papias tradition.
Over
179 reference books in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew, devote a section to Papias, and the trustworthiness of his testimony re Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.
I have chosen Blackwell as my main tertiary source as it is 1) up to date, 2) has an online preview to verify 3) is representative of tertiary sources on topic.
Author and Setting: The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)
As I said we are close to consensus re Casey, Ehrman & Blackwell being reliable sources but do they support the deleted edit? If the edit goes beyond the sources, Why?...and how can we fix it? 13:35, 31 August 2013 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) .
@In ictu oculi - I am overjoyed. Are you saying that you agree (A) Bart Ehrman, (B) Maurice Casey and (C) Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are reliable sources. If so then I agree with you on the other issues and will let you do the honors of editing "The Gospel of Matthew" from a NPOV!
@ Eusebeus - No need for a topic ban. I have made my point and will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but, to the OP: WHAT!? Can you cite a reliable source written by a secular scholar that says Ehrman is "fringe"?
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The site http://bollywoodboxofficenews.com/ has been used as a reference in a large number of articles about Bollywood films and movie stars. As an example, this subpage was used as a source for statements like "[actor's name] is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential actors in the history of Indian cinema", for instance in Mithun Chakraborty and Amitabh Bachchan. I do not dispute the claim that these actors are among the most important Indian movie stars, it's not an unreasonable claim to make. But up until a day or two ago, the site's disclaimer included the text
Film posters and celebrity images on this website are free and open for public use. All Informations Provided in this website are Purely based on unconfirmed media reports, news channel programs and gossips! Some of the compiled data includes Wikipedia statements. Statements and commentaries in this website can be entirely personal opinions and may differ from facts. BOLLYWOODBOXOFFICENEWS.COM will not be held responsible or liable in any loss resulting from the use of the compiled data and associated information.
This can be verified in archive.org; here's the version from Aug 24. Since that rather blatantly signals a non-RS, I went through some 40 articles a couple of days ago and removed all refs to bollywoodboxofficenews.com. Now a few of the refs have been returned with comments like "seems well-researched" and seemingly irrelevant statements about the disclaimer ( [32], [33]) and when I look at the site again the footer has been changed to read
Film posters and celebrity images on this website are free and open for public use. Our film experts and analysts have tried their best to compile the data as acurately as possible and have made honest efforts to keep it factually correct. still, the data is for only informational purpose and BollywoodBoxOfficeNews will not be held responsible or liable in any loss resulting from the use of the compiled data and associated information.
It could be a coincidence that they have changed this right now.... but I really don't think so. The site does not have any hallmarks of being a reliable source, the anonymous "film experts" write very much like gossip columnists or fanboys, and I suspect serious refspamming and tweaking of the disclaimer to seem more trustworthy for the purpose of inserting links on Wikipedia pages. The content is still the same as it was before the tweak of the footer. I would like to see the site blacklisted, but since it's used as a reference I think this noticeboard is where the report needs to be posted, if for no other reason than to check if I'm right in my assessment of the source. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know other people's opinion about bdmilitary.com, a "source" that is the only source on a large number of weapons related articles here on en-WP for claims about the types of weapon systems, and the number of weapons/vehicles/aircraft etc of each system, that are used by the Bangladesh Armed Forces. Claims and figures that in most cases aren't supported by other sites on the 'Net, or are only partially supported (such as for the BTR-80 where sources known to be reliable say 132 vehicles while bdmilitary.com claim over 500...). One such example is a Chinese-made self-propelled artillery piece designated PLZ-45 where bdmilitary.com claims that the Bangladesh Army has a number of battalions of that gun, a claim that is not supported by any other site on the 'Net (a search on Google for "Bangladesh" and "PLZ-45" lists only the WP article, where the source is bdmilitary.com, and a Pakistani forum that states that it got its info from bdmilitary.com). And the Sipri armstrade register has nothing on it, even though they list several other systems that Bangladesh has bought from China (the claimed PLZ-45 deal is not said to be a new deal, but an order placed in 2009 and delivered in 2010-2011, but Sipri still doesn't have anything on it). In addition to that bdmilitary.com has no information about where it gets its material from. As for the site itself the only info that I can find about it is that it is a private site, and not a government site. So what do you think? Thomas.W talk to me 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: I agree with you about the lack of authenticity of bdmilitary.com. However, your figure regarding BTR-80 is not accurate. According to SIPRI arms register, Bangladesh Armed Forces has 232 BTR-80: 14 received in 1994, 78 received between 2001-2002, 60 received in 2006 and 80 received in 2011. Also, the most circulated Bangladeshi newspaper named "Prothom Alo" reported on August 24, 2013 that the government has bought 260 APC, 18 ARV, 15 APC ambulance, 44 3rd generation MBT, 2 helicopters, 18 SPAG and unknown number of Radar for Bangladesh Army in their 4.5 years. A details of the procurement has also been given on the same newspaper: Year 2008-2009 184 x truck - 3 ton - Japan - BDT 79.82 crore ২০০৮-০৯
Year 2009-2010 120 x APC, 10 x ARV, 10 x APC ambulance - Russia - BDT 510.95 crore
Year 2010-2011 44 x MBT-2000 Tank, 3 x Type Type-654 ARV - China - BDT 1201.81 crore 2 x Eurocopter AS365 N3+ Dauphin helicopters - France - BDT 179.42 crore ? X Radar - China - BDT 136.39 crore
Year 2011-2012 18 x Nora B52 SPAG - Serbia - BDT 541.34 crore 113 x Anti-Tank weapon System (unknown type) - Russia - BDT 222.07 crore 140 x APC, 5 x ARV, 5 x APC ambulance - Russia - BDT 651.45 crore
The same source also indicates that the Army also has an ongoing plan to procure"
2 x Aircraft, 3 x missile detection radar, Radio equipment, Multiple Launch Rocket System, lot of Anti-Tank weapons systems, ATGM and more APC.
Source: Prothom Alo. It is a Bengali news paper. Please translate it in English in google translator. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamrul512 ( talk • contribs) 11:32UTC, 3 September 2013
=> No issue. My translator worked. I am pasting the translated text as it is for you. Thanks.
Large block of text translated from Bengali to English, though probably not relevant for this particular discussion.
|
---|
15000 crore weapons - Equipment Purchase Special Representative | Updated: 04:39, August 4, at 013 | Print version 19 and Four and a half years of military government purchasesThe former Soviet state of Belarus with the purchase of military equipment and technology exchange agreement said. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's visit to Belarus in the last 8 July between the two sides at the time - was the deal. The official said the agreement was not accepted. Awami League government for four and a half years in the military sector, a lot of shopping, but it was never published. At the Armed Forces (Army, Navy and Air), 15 thousand 104 crore for the arms, golabarudasaha various types of military equipment has been purchased. The eight thousand crore equipment purchase agreements with Russia. It is also in the process of purchasing equipment crore. Ministry of Defence sources confirmed the information. past four years in the purchase of military equipment sophisticated night fighter, yuddhajahaja, military helicopters, armored vehicles, missile and radar are different types. armed forces to learn more about business than the first light from the 1 March Inter-PR paridaptarera ( aiesapiara) Principal Staff Officer of the Armed Forces of the information is sought in writing. Aiesapiara are writing in response to the March 5, the National নিরাপত্তাসংশ্লিষ্ট because the answer is not possible. ' Armed Forces Day on November 1 last year, the Prime Minister in his speech on the occasion of the purchase of equipment for a variety of information. 7 February this year Parliament Questions and how to buy military equipment, he said. military purchases in this sector with one of the experts we talked to. They said, if the equipment is kinatei. Our defense - defensive policy should be. However, the attacker struck, we'll strick back, I'll break him continue to attack in front, it just is. retirement from the army, a post office name was not revealed in the light of conditions in the four and a half years in the shop, some people hope - a reflection of what is happening akanksarai. Defense policy because it is not a comprehensive shopping. However, if at any direction of the defense - must have the approval of the Cabinet Committee of Parliament. But he did not do anything. Through discussions with the defense policy not acceptable in the modern building at different times of the Armed Forces of the shopping options are not acceptable at all. Transparency is important, as well as the Gold said. former army chief Mahbubur Rahman said this context, the ability of the defense sector should be increased. In the case of investment required. However, the high-interest loan from Russia have been taken, they have never had. It's so high-interest loans for the events happened. This loan will be paid from the pockets of ordinary people. many shopping: Economic Relations Department of the Ministry of Finance has, from the beginning of the fiscal year 008-09 01 -13 fiscal year - three of the four years for 188 million U.S. dollars, or approximately 15 thousand 104 million of military equipment has been purchased. It has been bought by the army. For four years, five thousand of the 407 million of the 7 million worth of equipment has been purchased. Navy for four thousand 975 crore 49 lakh and the air force for four in 7 of the 13 million dollar equipment purchase. their business outside of Russia loans from the eight crore tanks devastating missile, armored vehicle (APC), pantuna Bridge, training aircraft, military helikaptarasaha the equipment purchase contract has been completed. From 0 to 018 in the April 15 annual installments over 10 years at 4 percent interest loan payments will be. Under the deal, weapons and equipment will be purchased in the 017. 013-14 fiscal year and the defense sector has been allocated a budget of 14 thousand 458 crore. The development of the armed forces of the 8 billion has been allocated. almost 100 million dollars more than the cost of creating the first submarine to complete yuddhajahaja (Submarine) government has decided to purchase. Pekuya upazila in Cox's Bazar Kutubdia channel submarine bases for the land allocation process. The military budget has been allocated to fund 14 percent of the 9. 13 of 88 crore in the previous year. The 011-1 of the fiscal year was allocated 11 thousand 978 crore. army: the current government came to power military and 60 armored vehicles, 18 military rescue vehicle, 15 APC ambulance, 44 third-generation tanks, two helicopters, 18 automatic cannon and military radar purchase. 008-09 79 million in the fiscal year from 8 million in Japan bought 184 tonnes of the truck. The next year is buying from Russia 1 0 armored vehicle (aramarda Personal Carrier - APC), 10 military rescue vehicle (aramarda Recovery vehicle - earabhi) and 10 APC ambulance. 510 crore 95 lakh purchase price of the equipment. Buying from China is 010-11 in fiscal year 81 lakh crore rupees of 01 MB The fourth generation of the 000 model 44 tank recovery vehicle and the military. Two helicopters were bought brand made in France iurokaptara 4 million Rupees 179 crore. In that year, China bought from the radar is the cost of 136 crore 39 lakh. From next year, Serbia 18 automatic cannon (Self - propelada songs - esapigana) is buying 541 crore 34 lakh rupees. Russia seven million rupees from 222 million purchase of 113 tanks and equipment devastating. In the same year Russia 651 crore 45 lakh rupees buy 140 armored vehicles, five rescue vehicle and five APC ambulance. Sources said the Army for two aircraft, the missile detection radar, the radio sampracarakendra, multiple launch rocket systems, as well as some tyankabidhbansi weapons, short-range tyankabidhbansi gaideda uipana, episisaha the government's decision to purchase the equipment. Navy: the Navy for four years 16 new ships have been added. The 11 have been purchased with the assistance of the poor in China sipaiyarde creating five small-sized vessels. 008-09 163 crores in the fiscal year in Italy is buying the Maritime Helicopter. 141 crores were purchased from the same missile emake -1. 836 crore 87 lakh rupees in the next year, two large patrol vessels from China (elapisi) and five small patrol vessels are purchased. 136 crore 93 lakh rupees in the purchase of two ships and a survey of the ship. In addition, 30 of the 54 million to 50 million in China and 159 million missile radar equipment was purchased 64 lakh rupees. 010-11 of the fiscal year are brought to Germany for naval aircraft Maritime daraniyara two brands. The price of the 41 crore 38 lakh 78 thousand taka. On June 3, the last Navy air base's main kurmitolaya inaugurated. 659 crore 39 lakh rupees in the year one thousand two yuddhajahaja bought from China. This year, 65 million were purchased in two phrigeta. transparency Gold Navy Vice Admiral M Farid Habib want to know more about the June 3, said the Navy Gold transparency of all time. No irregularities of any kind. airforce: 009-10 of 33 billion rupees for the fiscal year flight from China is buying sbalpapallara air defense systems (esaeicaoaraedi). -7 F aircraft maintenance facility is to establish the cost of Rs 04 crore. The average time for a flight from China and Mig -7 - 9 aircraft missile from Russia for the purchase of the 7 million from 17 million. 010-11 538 crore in the fiscal year of the fourth generation is buying 16 -7 busy night fighter F-1 and 345 crore rupees to create a Russian helicopter MI esaeica -171. These include Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on April 9, bimanabahinite. The following year, four MiG - 9 - 119's maintenance cost is 50 lakh crore. The air defense radar buy from China are spending more money in eight of 15. no defense policy, military sources said, in the country there is no defense policy. The four-party alliance government defense policy is taken. It can be stopped. The current government defense ministry parliamentary committee has just talked. However, for the modernization of the armed forces' Forces Goal - the 030 in a five-year term to a four-step plan of the Armed Forces Division. 015 to 011 in the first step, the second step is from 0 to 016 and 0, 0 and 1 in the third step and the fourth step from 0 5 0 and 6 and will be implemented in 030. The Prime Minister gave the approval. The government is in the shop, it was part of the first phase. much logical: defense policy poor countries like Bangladesh, after having spent a large amount of money in the purchase of military equipment, how logical? In response to a question that the former army chief KM Shafiullah said, 'we open, it will depend on the development of our defense policy. The business case must be transparent, so it was not a question. If you need to take to protect themselves secure. 's Needs. ' country is a defense policy. The purpose of the decision is the shopping? Asked Parliamentary Chief Idris Ali said, defense policy own actions, but the Army are in the process, have goals Forces. The aim is also to shop. Gold was the clarity of this 15 crore think not - a question he said his shop is on demand. In the case of any irregularity in the only parliamentary committee may interfere. , but Russia, with eight thousand crore military equipment purchase agreement after the January 1 news conference, the Armed Forces of the Principal Staff Officer (PS) Abu Belal Muhammad Shafiul Huq, the military opacity does not leave any kind of equipment purchases. In the case of all of the comments are being taken. ' BRAC University to Air Commodore (retd) isaphaka Elahi Chowdhury said, if a force must have the capability. If you do not have to leave the keys? Competencies required for military equipment. However, many of these tools cost more, the common people can not think. But whatever the price, shopping of course want to be transparent, so that people do not have any doubt. published in the London January 9 durnitibirodhi international organization Transparency International (tiai) is one report, the risk of corruption in the military sector. National security - of the secret things of the body, such information is not given, the security sector's annual audit report of any debate that does not match. ' the 7 February the government army, held on corruption charges in the Transparency International Bangladesh (FDI) research report Published in FDI Sultana Kamal said, "The military sector of the shopping is not revealed to the public for any information. The lack of sbacchatarao. The Constituent Assembly had not yet been discussed. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamrul512 ( talk • contribs) 12:03 UTC, 3 September 2013 |
"I have been visiting the website for years and never found any material incorrect"? Is that how we determine the reliability of sources here? I don't think so. If Bangladesh has purchased substantial quantities of matériel the fact will almost certainly have been reported in the press, at the very least of the vendor country. Those reports would be better sources. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I've never seen maps used as reliable source before and there is no specific guidance on WP:RS. It was suggested that because some interpretation is required that it seems to be a form of WP:OR/ WP:SYN. There is an assessment request for Brickens on the Ireland WikiProject assessment page but I find it curious to see links to Google, and other sourced, maps as citations even though they don't actually state the facts alluded to. The article itself appears to have improved quite a bit but I don't know if the citations/reference are regarded as acceptable. I've removed the links to external images on the basis of WP:ELNEVER but the maps concern me. ww2censor ( talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Many of the "Controversies" in the Zayed University article are sourced to The National (Abu Dhabi). After reading through the article for the latter I'm wondering if the experts here have a sense for the reliability of this news outlet. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Over the past few days, multiple users (myself excluded) have been removing and re-adding sourced information about cast additions, hosts, etc, while debating over whether said sources are reliable. I'm on the fence on the reliability; would anyone else like to look at this? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Are these sources
enough to be able to call the 969 Movement anti-Muslim and/or islamophobic without using weasel words like "critics charge that"? // Liftarn ( talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this site considered reliable? It is a blogspot, but it is operated by Douglas Pucci, who works for TV Media Insights, which is owned by Cross MediaWorks Inc.. All of the information that he posts that can be cross-referenced is factually accurate. He also cites Nielsen as his source. I'd like to use his site to reference ratings numbers for cable shows whose ratings haven't been posted by other sites like Futon Critic or TV by the Numbers.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The [teleological argument] is central to creation science [I agree], which was relabeled intelligent design in 1988 [I think this irrelevant for the lead], and in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design [this is the concern to be discussed here at RSN].
Looking at the source, the concern is that it does not appear to say what it is being used to say. It is apparently simply one example of a book which uses the term "argument from intelligent design" to the refer to "the contemporary argument from intelligent design" on page 147 and does not mention the term anywhere else as far I can make out. Can one example be used to make Wikipedia make an absolute statement as seems to be the case here? P.S. Just as some off-article OR to test how likely this apparent synthesis is to be correct I can find the following in a very quick google books search, and just as a few quick examples (trying to pick respectable looking authors and publishers):-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask for more un-involved remarks specifically about the Sweetman source and how it has currently been used in order to imply that the term "argument from intelligent design" is only ever used in the context of the intelligent design movement please? (Does anyone think it appropriate to move some of the above discussion to a new thread, or to hat it?)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed User:Enkyo2 adding a source from 200 years ago by Isaac Titsingh (translated from a 17th-century work) in countless places around the articles on the Japanese imperial family. Sometimes the source is being used for statements about what happened decades after Titsingh died. Titsingh is mentioned 100 times in List of Emperors of Japan. In many cases Titsingh is being lumped together with a couple of other sources that appear to say different things. I'm wondering if I can be forgiven for requesting a more modern source written in either Japanese or English? Enkyo2 also appears not to understand that most of his uses of this (and other sources) appear to be woefully inadequate ... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
According to John Whitney Hall, who was the general editor of The Cambridge History of Japan, "Titsingh's Illustrations of Japan shows the result of careful translation from Japanese sources, as does also the posthumous Annales des Empereurs du Japon, which is a translation of the Ōdai-ichiran." This sentence comes from Hall's 1955 book, Tanuma Okitsugu, 1719-1788, at pp. 94-95.
Articles about Japanese emperors and Japanese era names -- and many other articles about Japanese events, places, government, history and historical figures -- are congruent in the similar foundation of research and cited sources which supports them. The array of articles is based on classic sources which are put in context by the Wikipedia article on Historiography of Japan. For example, when the reliable sources below are cited here, the reader is presented with links to other Wikipedia articles, including articles about the cited text itself, about its original author and about the translator:
Another unrelated use of the term "revenge" here was not encouraged by acknowledgment or response; but Hijiri88 continues "framing" a personal attack strategy. This needs to stop. The pretext needs to be rejected in order for this targeting to begin to stop. For example, in an article about any emperor of Japan, adding cite support from the Imperial Household Agency website is not in itself provocative; but Hijiri88's edit summary responds to a perceived "pointy" provocation.
A primary source can be cited as a primary source, which Enkyo appears to do in some contexts. The primary sources Enkyo is using, including Annales, are not outside of the mainstream, as evidenced by the high-quality and reliable translations available. If Enkyo desires to use these to make sources other than "the traditional dates", etc., he should justify that with other sources. The rest of this discussion appears to be a personal spat. Shii (tock) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Article: Denise Crosby Source: link Content: Can the link be used to reference why Crosby left Star Trek: The Next Generation?
A couple editors and I are having a discussion on the talk page of the article about whether we can find a reliable source that says that Crosby was let go by the producers of the show due to her posing for Playboy magazine. The above source was suggested as a possible source for the claim that she was fired but there's some hesitation when it comes to the idea of whether the source itself is reliable. Another editor has said that it reads like a "rant" and I tend to agree but would like another opinion. Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed a number of flags for US towns uploaded to Commons and put on various pages here by User:Illegitimate Barrister that are sourced exclusively to "Flags of the World. The site's homepage explicitly says "Pages are edited by volunteer editors — qualifications include a keen interest in flags and a willingness to learn html editing"—it's essentially a wiki, and those are generally not treated as reliable. The site even comes with a disclaimer stating: "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." I suspect that many flags uploaded to that website are nothing more than inventive fabrications made by overeager editors.
For instance, take File:Flag of Smith Island, Maryland.png. Running a Google search on it excluding Wikipedia and FOTW reveals nothing much, and a search-by-image very little in the way of similar images—only flags derived from the FOTW source—and no webpage on Smith Island (e.g. [45], [46]) shows any similar sort of flag. Moreover, I spent several days on the island this past August, and did not see it or anything resembling it even once. Either I've missed something major both on the web and in real life, or this isn't a real flag. IB seems to have uploaded dozens of similar files, and I am suspicious that a number of them are similarly fabricated.
Now, I realise that Commons has its own set of rules and what happens here often has little effect there. However, I would like for these questionable flags to be removed from our pages until they can be properly vetted (I have already done so for Smith Island), and perhaps a decision here could hasten action on Commons to have these flags, which are currently marked as "official", marked as unofficial/fanciful. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Koreanindie.com is an acceptable source? It includes a blog section, but I'm not sure whether the entire website would count as a blog or not. It does include a staff [47], though I don't know whether the website is their full time job or just something they volunteer for. The bottom of the page includes the text "Designed by WPSHOWER". I'm not familiar with WPSHOWER, but its website [48] says that it creates "Wordpress themes". I know that Wordpress is more or less a blog, so I assume that this would make anything designed by WPSHOWER unreliable, but wanted to check to see if anyone knows more about this first. -- Jpcase ( talk) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Is Figshare a reliable source for wikipedia entries?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c:4d80:30d:3d2a:62ba:fefb:233c ( talk • contribs)
In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.
The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.
Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) of BLP.
Apart from being poorly sourced, the section is an act of vandalism.
And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it The sources linked to the article are [49] [50] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 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 150 | ← | Archive 152 | Archive 153 | Archive 154 | Archive 155 | Archive 156 | → | Archive 160 |
Over the years, apparently unhappy with the figures from the US Census quoted in Azerbaijani American, a number of editors have tried to add other numbers, an order of magnitude larger that the Census figures, showing that there are more Azerbaijanis in the U.S. than the Census reports. Mostly these figures have come from obviously biased sources with a mission to promote the interests of Azerbaijanis, and have been removed for that reason.
The latest attempt is sourced to the a survey done in 2005 by the Iranian Studies Group at MIT. While the ISG describes itself in this manner:
The Iranian Studies Group at MIT (ISG) is a non-partisan, non-profit, academic organization with the aim of promoting Iranian civil society through conducting research on issues related to Iranian native and expatriate societies. Our research projects focus on the cultural, social, economic, and political development of the Iranian society. By actively publicizing our findings in a format that is accessible for the community at large, we aim to bridge the gap between research, public knowledge, and policy-making. [1]
it also says:
ISG is recognized by the Massachusetts Institute of Technology's Association of Student Activities
which means that it is essentially a student organization.
I'd like some opinions on whether this organization should be considered a reliable source, and on whether the online survey behind the numbers is legitimate. The Survey Team consisted of two PhD candidates, a sophomore, and an "undergraduate", and their Advisory Group consist primarily of "Community Activists" and POV organizations. My feeling is that the survey does not appear to be academically rigorous, and probably should not be considered to be a reliable source, so I've removed the material from the article, until a consensus is reached here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 21:48, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
This is regarding Steve Coogans personal life, and the quote is for when he entered rehab. I understand that a gossip tabloid isn't reliable and goes against the BLP rules, but if the individual person has no problem being frank and openly provides and discusses such information, isn't it reliable as a source. It isn't being intrusive or spreading a claim, it is reporting a fact, and isn't inappropriately discussing thr persons life, as they have spoken publicly about this themselves. I'd appreciate the input. Thanks - Jak Fisher ( talk) 01:57, 21 August, 2013 (UTC)
But these "facts" are included in many articles on wikipedia, a point which you seem to be avoiding. So why aren't they appropriate then, if they are mentioned so often on wikipedia. - Jak Fisher ( talk)
Note that this is also being discussed at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Steve Coogan (2). -- John ( talk) 05:34, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
As far as I know, WP is not considered a reliable source and cannot be used to source itself. Nevertheless, User:Pigsonthewing insists that it can be "used as a reference when describing its own actions". As this is a long-time editor with many edits, I was wondering whether I was mistaken and Wikipedia can indeed be used as a reference. Comments welcome here or on the article talk page. -- Randykitty ( talk) 14:38, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm working on finding reliable sources for List of national symbols. Is http://targetstudy.com/qna/what-are-the-national-symbols-of-afghanistan.html a reliable source for the national symbols of Afghanistan? They don't seem to cite their sources, but they are supposedly some sort of education-ish web site in India. The info presented on their site looks legit, and I checked their page http://targetstudy.com/qna/what-are-the-national-symbols-of-india.html against reliable sources, and info there checks out. Does anyone happen to know of any (other) reliable sources for the national symbols of Afghanistan (i.e. national flower, national bird, national animal, etc., not just flag and anthem)? I can't find any mention of any such thing on their government web sites. Wilhelm Meis ( ☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 02:33, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
Anyone with some music knowledge care to give an opinion about whether the website http://www.operanostalgia.be/ is a RS? I'm having difficulty finding information about a deceased singer outside of a couple of newspaper obituaries, and this website appears to fill in the biographical gaps a bit. Gamaliel ( talk) 21:18, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm writing here because I came across an article for PROD, Nowhere Man. Sounds simple right? Well, first I noticed that the article had already been PRODed, so I had to remove that PROD. A look at the claims of sourcing and notability on the talk page showed that a lot of the sources were unusable in one context or another. Many of the quotes were insanely brief and were one-off lines, meaning that they can't show notability as they're trivial sources. Others I couldn't find at all and since the person claiming notability sort of misrepresented the weight of the quotes they listed, there's good reason to suspect how in-depth the other reviews/quotes actually were. I did find some sources, but I also found that the author ( John M. Green) has written for a good many newspapers such as The Age and The Australian. That means that of course, any reviews or articles from them would be a primary source. However there is also the problem that the company that owns The Age also owns the Sydney Morning Herald. Does that make any sources from the SMH unusable since they're owned by the same company? I know that when I searched for sources on the sites for TA and SMH, the hit results were the same. I did find what I thought were enough sources to merit an article for Green, so I made that article and merged information from his publishing house Pantera Press into it. I noticed that an article for one of his authors, Sulari Gentill, needed work, so I began cleaning that as well since it looked like a spam article. However I then noticed that she works for ABC, which is one of the news sources that has provided a lot of coverage for Green.
So... the problem here is what, if any, of the sources are ultimately usable? Can we use any of the ABC stuff like this if stuff like this shows that one of his people works for one of the ABC branches? It's a little convoluted, so I thought I'd bring it up here. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:18, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
in the article Fastest_growing_religion reference 35 links to a pdf file on the yale website
http://www.yale.edu/macmillan/rps/kennedy.pdf
there is only one reference provided on the bottom of page 3 for the entire paper, no author is provided, and there is no Kennedy listed on the faculty of the macmillan center initiative on religion, politics and society Coasttrip ( talk) 02:29, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is so much arguing and debate on the ICOC talk page, and for a long time a lot of the links in the ICOC article were dead links. I don't know who is an authority on the ICOC. I don't know if any of the people that have modified the article or posted on the ICOC talk page are ICOC members or not. I am a former member of the ICOC, and to me, the ICOC article is confusing because the ICOC is such a secretive organization that I have no idea who is an accurate source and/or authority on the ICOC. When I first read the ICOC article it had a lot of information that was opinion and unverifiable. A lot of the information about the structure and facts on the ICOC are still unverifiable. Sometimes the ICOC article reads like an advertisement for the ICOC.
Qewr4231 ( talk) 06:31, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
There is some dispute as to whether AnimeCons.com is considered reliable or not for referencing attendance figures. The article that its being used on is List of attendance figures at anime conventions, and is the primary source for the article, referencing the majority of the article's attendance figures.
First of all, the website has a standing policy, to "not list any information which cannot be verified with the event's web site. This includes guest listings, programming, and registration rates." However, the website is also user-edited, and the information can be updated by anyone at anytime without a login, as evidenced at Ohayocon 2008's page which has a Update Information for Ohayocon 2008 link at the bottom of the page. So there is no way to verify if the information listed on the website came from the event's website or if it was just added by by someone else. The website has also not demonstrated a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.-- 十 八 21:58, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
I
searched "AnimeCons.com" in animenewsnetwork and all relevant results concern only press releases or forum posts. As i can tell "AnimeCons.com" was never used as a source for any less than 10 times between in 2006 and 2010 for news or article in animenewsnetwork. update : i made a more refined search using
this search. Sorry my googlefoo is a bit rusty --
KrebMarkt (
talk) 19:57, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I also did
the same with about.com and all results concern Comics & Anime Conventions where it's only mentioned in an Elsewhere on the Web paragraph. Again AnimeCons.com isn"t used a source.
Bottom line neither animenewsnetwork nor about.com use "AnimeCons.com" as a source for their news or articles --
KrebMarkt (
talk) 19:43, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
I also think that animecons.com is unreliable take in case AM², animecons.com marked it as cancelled with no other sources stating this as fact nor the primary source saying anything about it. It is dubious at the very least. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 04:25, 17 August 2013 (UTC)
ANimecons is like a news website e.g cnn, bbc in the sense that they just parrot what other sources say. All their info is based on a source, if the soruce is not reliable they wont put it on their website as stated in their policy. Their info is generally correct and matches primary sources, why not leave it at that?-- Misconceptions2 ( talk) 20:08, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
I am the creator of AnimeCons.com. Although we do accept user submissions, we do not post any submissions without verifying the information. If someone sends in a new date and location for a convention, we won't post it unless the date and location is posted on the convention's own site or the date comes from a very reliable source at the convention (like direct from someone we know as the convention chairman...but not from someone who we don't know or is just someone like some random security staffer). Our user submission form is ONLY used to alert us to changes (rather than having to constantly check every convention's site every day for every possible change!) Consider it a "tip". Once we get that information, we'll go to the convention's site, verify it, and post it if it checks out. We reject A LOT of submissions. Often a guest will say they're attending a convention and try to update their profile. That may be true, but we won't post it until the convention itself announces them. Our attendance numbers are from multiple sources including announced at closing ceremonies at the con and one of our staffers heard it personally, a press release from the con, a submission from a reliable staff member (chairman, head of registration, head of PR, etc.), or from the convention's web site. We sometimes get attendance numbers from random people citing no source or Wikipedia and we ignore those. (Although if Wikipedia points to a reliable source like a page on the convention's site that we didn't notice, we'll use that.) We don't publish our sources since about half the time it's submitted from a convention staffer and we don't want to give out their e-mail addresses...but the sources ARE tracked in our database, just not exposed. -- PatrickD ( talk) 17:38, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
The Guardian newspaper said that a recent document of the Holy See "described gay sex as inhuman". The document itself does not make this statement explicitly. Is the newspaper report a reliable source for saying in Wikipedia: "The document said that gay sex was inhuman", as here? Or is it only a reliable source for something on the lines of "a newspaper interpreted the document as saying gay sex was inhuman", as here? See also an initial discussion here. Esoglou ( talk) 07:28, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
It's Contaldo80, and yes I do. Even if we did not have the Guardian article we would still be justified in making the statement in the article that the document said that gay sex was inhuman. I have yet to hear a convincing argument that the word 'inhuman' does not apply. Contaldo80 ( talk) 08:29, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
Are sources from the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics; [8], [9], Astrophysics Data System; [10] and the American Institute of Physics [11]; [12] reliable? the sources support the statement that "the theory was introduced on some conferences". please see also Talk:Heim_theory#revert_august_17th.thanks for any comments.-- Gravitophoton ( talk) 13:48, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
Article attracts a lot of pov editing. It looks here [16] as though the editor is referencing himself - I can't see anything on the website link and in any case it would have to be attributed. Not sure about the category change either but that isn't an RSN issue. Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 09:51, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
A 2013 study by the US Commission on International Religious Freedom found that Pakistani Hindus are the worst victims of rape.
The above mentioned news article (source) cites this report for its claim, which further cites some blogs and news sources, some of which don't even say that the victims was raped. So can it be cited to make such a claim? -- SMS Talk 19:45, 23 August 2013 (UTC)
Hello, could I ask this group if these references, this one and this one are acceptable for an encyclopidia such as this. They could not be described as in any way academic? Would it be possible to link this page to article "talk pages" as I had to follow a number of links to get here. -- Dr Daly ( talk) 19:52, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
Though in regards to Abebooks - it is a description of the WST organisation's own annual that they have for sale. How can that not be grounds for a good make-shift or reliable source? Mabuska (talk) 22:09, 20 August 2013 (UTC)
Ancestry of Elizabeth II has a section that says "Descent before Conrad the Great is taken from fabpedigree.com and may be inaccurate." Should we be using this source? Thanks. Dougweller ( talk) 14:49, 21 August 2013 (UTC)
I've discovered a three-figure-plus number pages using the Google Maps home page as a reference; and others using specific Google Maps URLs; and others citing specific locations on that site. Please see this discussion, about how to resolve this. If there's a better place to notify colleagues interested in referencing, than this noticeboard, please drop me a talkpage note, and/ or copy this notice there. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 25 August 2013 (UTC)
Speaking as a PHD candidate researching the NGR Incident and other similar episodes (committed by ROK or KPA forces), who has read English and Korean documents on this, and visited and spoken to survivors and their families, I can shed some light on this. Contrary to WeldNeck's observations that critcisms of Bateman are based solely on Hanley's personal animosity, there are a number of obvious flaws in the book which render it suspicious. Furthermore, the Bateman/Hanley debate is well known to scholars of Korean War massacres, and Bateman's book is seldom used for a number of reasons, a few of which are as follows:
1. He did not visit or contact any of the victims from the massacre, nor does he consult any Korean government sources. Basic standards of objectivity suggests that this is a rather dubious approach to scholarship. Most scholars who cannot access a foreign language at least have the foresight to use an Research Assistant. In the debate that Hanley describes, Bateman excuses this on the grounds that he has a family, not a lot of money, etc. As a grad-student who is in a similar situation, I can tell you that this excuse would not be accepted by my PHD defence committee.
2. He claims that it is certain that guerrillas were among the refugees. This is a minority viewpoint within the veterans' testimony (in the US ARMY NGR report for example), and non-existent in the victims' version. While it is certainly plausible that fear of guerrilla infiltration was a major motivating factor in the massacre (as it is in the case of most civilian killings), the evidence for the actual existence of guerrillas is weak.
3. He claims without any evidence that the survivors all suffer from group think. Again, since he did not interview any of them, one is left to wonder how he arrived at this judgment.
4. He ignores (or didn't bother to do enough research) evidence of a number of memos, documents, and vet testimonials suggesting that a tacit, if not official, policy was in place by the last week of July to shoot refugees deemed suspicious. Most glaring is the absence of the "Muccio letter" (uncovered by Sahr Conway-Lanz). I would encourage readers to read Sarh-Conway Lanz's treatment of this issue published in the Journal of Diplomatic History. After reading this piece, it is difficult to take Bateman's work seriously, regardless of one's political persuasions. The reviews that WeldNeck refers to were all published prior to Lanz's work. He also does not mention that the 7th Cavalry journal was missing from the US archives, yet he claims that there is no evidence that kill orders existed. This is either remarkably careless scholarship or a deliberate distortion, given that other journals from similar locales were uncovered by the AP team indicating an understood policy to fire on refugees.
5. His low and inconsistent estimate of those killed (35 at times, 18-70 at others) does not appear to be based on any actual findings. While it is inevitable there is debate and ambiguity concerning the actual number of those killed, Bateman in his debate with Hanley comments that he arrived at this number through a "Ballpark" estimate. This is rather careless. In 2005, the "No Gun Ri Incident Review Report" was commissioned and determined the total number of victims to be 218 (150 killed, 13 missing, 55 disabled). This number was arrived at by searching censuses, family registers, visiting graves of families, victim testimonials, and a detailed, multi-step verification process. It has also uncovered the specific identity of many of those who died, and they have been officially registered with the South Korean government. While no methodology is perfect, this is clearly more useful than a "ballpark" estimate.
One of the above flaws alone ought to render any work of research seriously compromised. When taken as a whole, however, it is impossible for an impartial observer to claim that Bateman's work constitutes a legitimate work of scholarship, suitable as resource for an institution as integral to public understanding as Wikipedia.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
BW5530 (
talk •
contribs) 15:03, 26 August 2013
I will reproduce what was on the original post: A discussion is currently ongoing about the reliability of LtCol Robert Bateman’s book No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident
The book is published by Stackpole Books and has been well received. Some reviews:
AP author, Bateman critic, and article contributor Charles Hanley claims he’s is not a reliable source for the following reasons:
I discount (in part) Hanley’s opinion on the subject because he seems to have a real grudge against Bateman. From a SF Gate article about the feud between the two:
Late last year, Hanley wrote a nine-page letter to Stackpole Books, the Pennsylvania publisher bringing out Bateman's book this month, saying it would be a "grave mistake" to publish Bateman's "diatribes and defamations." A copy of the letter, filled with personal attacks against the author, was made available to The Chronicle. The letter is the kind of dark threat that gives free speech experts the chills -- "an effort at prior restraint," said Bill Kovach, chairman of the Committee of Concerned Journalists -- not to mention the fact that in this case, there is a certain reversal of roles. "It's ironic for a journalist, someone whose livelihood is protected by the First Amendment, to be seemingly threatening to curtail the speech of a military person," said James Naughton, president of the Poynter Institute, a journalism school in St. Petersburg, Fla. "The way matters like this tend to get resolved over time is for people to be able to make their own judgments about which version of events holds up on examination. More access to publishable versions, rather than less, seems to be desirable."
I had actually brought this subject up at the Conflict of Interest Forum, but no one had any input. WeldNeck ( talk) 22:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
Is it possible to cite emails on Wikipedia? I received an email from a person and I would like to use it as a reference in an article about him. The information I want to add is the date of birth of Mr. Franz Gastler. I know we should only use "reliable, third-party published sources", but no source has such info. — Bill william compton Talk 04:10, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
Yes, it is a website that has political leanings, but as WP:RS instructs "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made and is an appropriate source for that content.", and clarifies "the word "'source' when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings
and even with other occasions where OpEdNews may have been disallowed, I thought to bring the question here as each instance is different, and I am using the opinion of the writer/journalist and not that of the website.
In the article on the controversial film Money as Debt, it was used to source opinions in the reception section:
Thank you, Schmidt, Michael Q. 02:52, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
...specially in seeing that the above editor was successful in having the article on OpEdNews deleted. As it is, the article which raised this question has numerous other sources and looks to be a solid keep whether the nomination is withdrawn or no.
And while I still feel that guideline instructs that the Congressman's opinion should be citable under WP:RSOPINION, the situation here became one of judging the publisher and ignoring the author... no matter the instructions of applicable guideline... and when any publisher is considered so bad, we may ignore WP:RS's telling us that reliable source refers to either 1) "the piece of work itself" (the article, book), 2) "the creator of the work" (the writer, journalist), OR 3) "the publisher" of the worksource... and BECAUSE the work and opinion were published in a poor source, that placement taints any consideration that this congressman's opinion might have merit. Funny too is that had this been a Joe Bananas review published in Variety or Washington Post, we have no issues whatsoever. No wonder Kucinich has only 90 "likes" at the OpEdNews website. (LOL) Thanks all. Schmidt, Michael Q. 03:33, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Is there any rationale for these sources to be rejected?
full citations
|
---|
<ref name="McCarthy1995">{{cite book|author=Justin McCarthy|title=Death and exile: the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims, 1821-1922|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=1ZntAAAAMAAJ|accessdate=1 May 2013|year=1995|publisher=Darwin Press|isbn=978-0-87850-094-9}}</ref><ref name="Carmichael2012">{{cite book|author=Cathie Carmichael|title=Ethnic Cleansing in the Balkans: Nationalism and the Destruction of Tradition|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=ybORI4KWwdIC|accessdate=1 May 2013|date=12 November 2012|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-134-47953-5}}<br/>"During the period from 1821 to 1922 alone, Justin McCarthy estimates that the ethnic cleansing of Ottoman Muslims led to the death of several million individuals and the expulsion of a similar number."</ref><ref name="Press2010">{{cite book|author=Oxford University Press|title=Islam in the Balkans: Oxford Bibliographies Online Research Guide|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=Kck_-B7MubIC&pg=PA9|accessdate=1 May 2013|date=1 May 2010|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0-19-980381-1|pages=9–}}</ref> </small><ref name="McCarthy1983">{{cite book|author=Justin McCarthy|title=Muslims and Minorities: The Population of Ottoman Anatolia and the End of the Empire|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=UyFwQgAACAAJ|accessdate=24 August 2013|year=1983|publisher=New York University Press|isbn=978-0-8147-5390-3}}</ref><ref name=Chatty>{{cite book|last=Chatty|first=Dawn|title=Displacement and Dispossession in the Modern Middle East|year=2010|publisher=Cambridge University Press|isbn=9780521817929|page=86|url=http://books.google.com/books?id=cefhBwMRTDIC&pg=PA86&lpg=PA86&dq=At+the+end+of+the+war,+nearly+1.2+million+Muslims+in+western+Anatolia+had+died&source=bl&ots=UIxVcKSj79&sig=ifymEINzdTXBLDouB2zfWu0lEJQ&hl=nl&sa=X&ei=O37tUcSSH4nctAa72IDYCQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=At%20the%20end%20of%20the%20war%2C%20nearly%201.2%20million%20Muslims%20in%20western%20Anatolia%20had%20died&f=false|quote=At the end of the war, nearly 1.2 million Muslims in western Anatolia had died. Of the Anatolian Greeks, more than 3 13,000 died.}}</ref> |
See relevant discussion: Talk:List_of_massacres_in_Turkey#McCarthy.27s_reliability Cavann ( talk) 20:08, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm unsure whether this site fits our definition of a reliable source. Comments welcome. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/ talk ]# ▄ 08:43, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi all,
The
Depleted Uranium article has a lot of content about health impacts. I'm concerned that some of the sourcing fails
WP:MEDRS. Is a John Pilger column in Counterpunch a reliable source, or even a MEDRS, for cancer rates in Iraq? The disputed content is:
Iraqi doctors compare the cancer rates (projected to touch 50% in some areas) with the cancer epidemic after the nuclear strikes against Japan, with one US military physicist describing the use of DU shells as "a form of nuclear warfare."
The source is here: [25] bobrayner ( talk) 10:40, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
I've still not heard anything as to why Pilger is no good. You obviously
don't like him for some reason or other, but that's hardly germane.
"one US military physicist describing the use of DU shells as 'a form of nuclear warfare.'"—That's a direct quote, not Pilger's interpretation of some paper or other or speculation in lieu of the same.
The crux if the matter is this: in the face of refusal by US–UK to undertake any studies, why shouldn't the views of Iraqi doctors and others be aired? And why shouldn't a Pilger article be used to source their views? LudicrousTripe ( talk) 22:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Why not just rely on high quality peer reviewed material and leave the yellow journalism (and its interpretation of journal articles) out of the article? WeldNeck ( talk) 18:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Even if this non-existent interpretation you speak of were going on, following your line about not being allowed to use media reporting on journal articles would mean undertaking a truly awesome mass deletion of sourcing from Wikipedia, since such media reporting is used all the time without complaint. LudicrousTripe ( talk) 22:17, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
704 search results, you say! You didn't even, for example, put depleted uranium in double quotes! That alone more than halves your results. Here's an example of one of your 704 search results for depleted uranium and effects on civilian populations: "Natural and depleted uranium in the topsoil of Qatar: Is it something to worry about?" Qatar? Just about as irrelevant as you can get when the studies need to be of cities in Iraq. Quite aside from which your results will also pick up all the results of those on military personnel. So claiming 704 search results is rather misleading.
Anyway, overall, I have to concede. I'll go through Google scholar and other places, see what I can come up with. LudicrousTripe ( talk) 07:37, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
There is a request for comments (RfC) that may be of interest. The RfC is at
At issue is whether we should delete or keep the following text in the Lavabit article:
There is a question as to whether the above violates our policy on reliable sources. Your input on this question would be very much welcome. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi everyone. I'm dealing with a rather... passionate editor over at the Ilias Kasidiaris article who is working from some, at least in my view, rather odd interpretations of wikipedia policy. It would be much appreciated if you could examine this article on the hope not hate website and let me know if you'd be happy that the second image presented there would be a reasonable source for stating that Mr Kasidiaris has a nice big swastika on his arm. Thanks in advance, everyone. Dolescum ( talk) 17:12, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Should Exceptional People Magazine be used as a major source in Raul Julia-Levy article? It's an odd BLP article anyway, with a film director who a NY Times story in 2005 (which isn't in the article) says the BLP subject is actually an impostor called Salvador Fuentes. The whole thing is probably a BLP nightmare. But just on the one question, that magazine, Exceptional People Magazine should it be half the BLP's sources? In ictu oculi ( talk) 17:20, 29 August 2013 (UTC)
Some anonymous IP editors want to include the text below in the article Monoamine oxidase inhibitor, in the section, List of MAOIs. I do not believe that the Journal of Student Research is a reliable source. I have opened a discussion on it here
Lemon Balm(ref)Natalie Harrington (2012). "Harmala Alkaloids as Bee Signaling Chemicals". Journal of Student Research. 1 (1): 23–32.(/ref)
The text is supported by an article in the Journal of Student Research, the mainpage for which is here. I do not think anything from this journal should be considered a reliable source for a Wikipedia article. Editorial policy, scope, etc is here. This is a journal of articles by students; the editorial page is not clear but one assumes the reviewers are other students. This is not professional science. Please weigh in! Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 05:01, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
Is this acceptable? When it has been concluded that a work is not a reliable source, can it then be moved to the further reading section? The manual of style seems to have very little in the way of guidance other than it being a list of "editor-recommended publications".
On art game, editors are recommending a self-published work by a non-expect, who has never been independently published. I've tried to remove it, but it got reverted. If "further reading" really is as anything goes as "editor-recommended", I'm not sure I can do anything else. Despite the work being self-published and given no coverage in reliable sources, it is held in very high regard by Wikipedians. - hahnch e n 01:01, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
The source is quite clearly unreliable. Or else Thibbs would not have to argue that WP:RS does not apply to opinion pieces, and that we should set aside policy of WP:SPS that self-published authors must be established experts who have been published by reliable third-party publications.
That "comprehensive 104 page criticism" that Thibbs describes, is self-published, has not been reviewed. In it's entire publication history, it has been cited only once, in a paper which described it as "a lengthy, homophobic, pseudo-intellectual screed". That's what the only reliable source thinks of the book our editors have so tirelessly promoted.
In fact, the "further reading" section was created solely to promote this self-published work. - hahnch e n 11:53, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Certainly the author's views have been published in RSes where they have been the subject of discussion (both in praise of and in opposition to). SPS doesn't effect a bar for opinion based references that are not cited. This one is merely included in a Further Reading section per consensus, in the interest of NPOV, and based on the fact that the author has gained a degree of notability by being cited by, discussed, and praised by dozens of RSes. You've paid lip service to concerns regarding reliability but you are anxious for some reason to avoid applying WP:RS (where WP:RSOPINION is clearly the closest on point). Instead you prefer to use WP:V's section on SPSes, recurrently comparing this source to a pseudoscientific source on the physics of time where SPS would indeed be closest on point. The Kierkegaard source is an opinion piece. It's written by a repeatedly RS-cited author. It's the most in-depth work on the topic of art game criticism currently available. It's being included in the interest of neutrality and it's being placed unreffed at the end of the article in a small "further reading" section. The consensus for this compromise (the third suggested) was achieved after a month of your battlegrounding the issue. We're now discussing matters at the fifth (!!) talk page you've expanded to in an apparent attempt to fish for support. Is this really your best effort at collaborating constructively with your peers, Hahnchen? - Thibbs ( talk) 22:45, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Could something from here be used as a valid source? http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#52880310 Z07x10 ( talk) 13:31, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
Can the various Youtube links cited as references in Dan Meyer (performer) be regarded as reliable sources for the details of the life and achievements of the subject? My own inclination is to remove them all forthwith, but I'd like to get the opinion of others before I do that. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:23, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
An editor has asked at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hagen Troy whether a page such as this, posted on Straits Times Communities, should be regarded as a reliable source for the article on Hagen Troy, but has also raised the question of whether that site should in general be considered reliable. Any thoughts? Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 20:21, 1 September 2013 (UTC)
I wanted to know if a Facebook post by Valor por Tamaulipas may be considered a reliable source. Valor por Tamaulipas is a Facebook page ran by an anonymous citizen journalist that routinely posts risk situations in the Mexican state of Tamaulipas. Many media outlets have used Valor por Tamaulipas's posts as information in their news coverages (see sources on the article for more info). For example, Proceso (magazine) used information from the FB page to confirm that a shootout that left over 40 dead in northern Mexico was caused by the killing of a local warlord. [27] [28] If the media uses Valor por Tamaulipas's posts as reliable, can we do too? I'll make sure to include "According to Valor por Tamaulipas, ..." Thanks. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 02:19, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
source in question is used in the article several times in article Employee stock ownership plan. The paper is someone's research based on their review of primary and secondary sources, although our policies seem to indicate that prior publication is expected. The source is used to support points in "some people say..." "scholars say..." . Some sources within this source, such as NCEO.org(think tank) and esca.us(lobbying group) as described in reliable media like CNN Money and BusinessWeek are clearly biased.
" Scholars estimate that annual contributions to employees of S ESOPs total around $14 billion"
"ESOPs were developed as a way to encourage capital expansion and economic equality. Many of the early proponents of ESOPs believed that capitalism’s viability depended upon continued growth, and that there was no better way for economies to grow than by distributing the benefits of that growth to the workforce"
"One study estimates that the net U.S. economic benefit from S ESOP savings, job stability and productivity totals $33 billion per year"
Should unpublished working paper that cites think tank and advocates be used for supporting claims of advantages, specifically the ones made above. Cantaloupe2 ( talk) 12:46, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
Is Webster's Third New International Dictionary a reliable source for supporting entries in a list such as List of ethnic slurs? The thread is Talk:List of ethnic slurs#Dubious. Rivertorch ( talk) 16:59, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be some dispute over the appropriateness of certain sources used for the number of Serbs. Two editors in particular have been engaged in an edit war over whether the sources are appropriate, with one saying they are unreliable because they are nationalist, the other claiming they are valid. The article has since been locked (expires on the 9th), and with some persuasion a bit of discussion has taken place, but it has already descended into personal attacks so I don't really have much faith in the ability of the involved editors to solve it. I am afraid that once the block expires, the edit warring will just continue. I don't think I can contribute much to this personally, I have tried mostly to mediate the discussion. So I hope that someone who knows more about these issues can help steer things in a more productive direction. I think it's best if the discussion is continued at Talk:Slavs#Sources for number of Slavs. CodeCat ( talk) 00:20, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
The following has again been deleted from the Gospel of Matthew
However, Bart Ehrman, Maurice Casey and the Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are said to be on the fringe of Biblical scholarship and NOT reliable sources. Particular hostility seems reserved for Ehrman.
Requests
I have supplied links and I am available to answer any questions. Thanks, Ret.Prof ( talk) 18:21, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Hi John, glad to have your input. As always you make a number of good points. However, I do not think WP:TE and WP:FORUMSHOPPING apply here. At the Matthew talk page on several occasions it was argued that the trustworthiness of Papias re the Hebrew Gospel was a fringe theory. That is why it was raised at the Wikipedia:Fringe theories/Noticeboard. It was decided that because of the large number of sources that raise the trustworthness of Papias issue, that Wikipedia:Fringe theories should not apply. Most agreed with User:Shii that a "fringe theory" is one that is outside of the responsible literature entirely. If Ehrman et al. cover it, that is at least grounds to mention it, as the question is one of WEIGHT, not FRINGE. (See diff, diff, diff and diff )
With the fringe theory issue resolved the debate shifted to the reliable sources issue where you debated User:Smeat75 and User:Ignocrates over the past month. I must say you held your own.
Please read this.
|
---|
I have not looked in at wikipedia for a few months for various reasons but did so today and see this discussion. I must say that in my opinion John Carter's statements about Bart Ehrman do not show a grasp of the policy he quotes, WP:RS, which states at the very beginning "Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both." Ehrman is certainly "authoritative" on his subjects and the information from my edit in April quoted above is now a little out of date as he has two more forthcoming books on the New Testament to be published by Oxford University Press,[ [31]]. It is disturbing to me that a powerful admin such as I believe John Carter to be seems to think he can decide that a respected authority with seventeen books published by OUP is a "questionable" source because he writes "popular books". It seems to me from what John Carter says that his attitude is really a case of WP:I DON'T LIKE IT and therefore he thinks it should not be here. Regards, Smeat75 ( talk) 21:09, 3 August 2013 (UTC)
Fyi, the issue re Ehrman was already raised at RSN as well as FTN. John Carter seems to have a massive problem with WP:I DON'T LIKE IT coupled with WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Ignocrates ( talk) 18:36, 8 August 2013 (UTC)
"Like I said, it is, despite the implicit (or in the case of one person fairly explicit) to actually review the relevant policies and guidelines. If you have serious questions " Yes, I have a serious question,. What does that previous sentence mean? It is incoherent. " Yes, some of Ehrman's work, including a lot of academic journal articles, are secondary, and we favor them. But, except perhaps in the bibliography sections of articles, we prefer where possible secondary sources " That doesn't make any sense either - "A lot of his work is secondary but we prefer secondary sources?" Eh? I note that once again you have compared the work of probably the leading NT scholar of today to comic books and if you think Ehrman just repeats things in his books that he has got out of other books you need to read Ehrman's works.Also I did not "forumshop", I joined discussions you were taking part in in two places. Smeat75 ( talk) 02:16, 11 August 2013 (UTC)
|
It was at the conclusion of this debate (I even remember some other discussions with User:Paul Barlow User:Salimfadhley, User:Eric Kvaalen, User:Shii and User:Stephan Schulz) that I sought help here carefully following all WP policy guidelines. My position is that Casey, Ehrman and Blackwells are clearly reliable sources. The main issue is to what degree do they support the trustworthiness of Papias re Matthew's early account in Hebrew (Aramaic).
- And this is what he says about Matthew: “And so Matthew composed the sayings in the Hebrew tongue, and each one interpreted [or translated] them to the best of his ability.
- This is not eyewitness testimony to the life of Jesus, but it is getting very close to that. Where conservative scholars go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about the origins of our Gospels of Matthew and Mark. The problem is that even though he “knows” that there was an account of Jesus's life written by Mark and a collection of Jesus's sayings made by Matthew, there is no reason to think that he is referring to the books that we call Mark and Matthew. In fact, what he says about these books does not coincide with what we ourselves know about the canonical Gospels. He appears to be referring to other writings, and only later did Christians (wrongly) assume that he was referring to the two books that eventually came to be included in Scripture. This then is testimony that is independent of the Gospels themselves. It is yet one more independent line of testimony among the many we have seen so far. And this time it is a testimony that explicitly and credibly traces its own lineage directly to the disciples of Jesus themselves. (quote from pp 100-101)
Issues
Where conservative scholars (and for that matther
user:John Carter and friends) go astray is in thinking that Papias gives us reliable information about our Gospel of Matthew when he is really talking about the Hebrew Gospel of Matthew. British historian Maurice Casey comes to the same conclusion.
- Papias attributed the collection of some Gospel traditions to the apostle Matthew, one of the Twelve, who wrote them down in Aramaic and everyone 'translated/interpreted (hērmēneusen)' them as well as they were able. There is every reason to believe this. It explains the high proportion of literally accurate traditions, mostly of sayings of Jesus, in the 'Q' material and in material unique to the Gospel of Matthew. It also explains the lack of common order, as well as the inadequate translations of some passages into Greek. (quote from p 86)
- It follows that this is what Papias meant! It is genuinely true that the apostle Matthew 'compiled the sayings/oracles in a Hebrew language, but each (person) translated/ interpreted them as he was able.' Moreover, the Greek word logia, which I have translated 'sayings/oracles', has a somewhat broader range of meaning than this, and could well be used of collections which consisted mostly, but not entirely, of sayings. It would not however have been a sensible word to use of the whole Gospel of Matthew. It was later Church Fathers who confused Matthew's collections of sayings of Jesus with our Greek Gospel of Matthew. (quote from p 87)
It is upon this basis, that Casey after studying composite authorship in the Second Temple period comes to his scholarly conclusion. The Gospel of Matthew is anonymous and is the product of composite authorship of which Matthew's Hebrew Gospel was the fountainhead. Hence the name Gospel of Matthew as Matthew was probably a major source. Now, it has to be admitted that not everyone agrees. There are still some Christian scholars who believe that the Gospel of Matthew is a direct translation of Matthew's Hebrew Gospel. On the other extreme are those who believe the Gospel of Matthew is a Christian deception as it had nothing to do with Matthew because the Hebrew Gospel spoken of by Papias never existed.
All of the following tertiary sources discuss the trustworthiness of the Papias tradition.
Over
179 reference books in their articles on the Gospel of Matthew, devote a section to Papias, and the trustworthiness of his testimony re Matthew's Hebrew Gospel.
I have chosen Blackwell as my main tertiary source as it is 1) up to date, 2) has an online preview to verify 3) is representative of tertiary sources on topic.
Author and Setting: The earliest surviving tradition about Matthew comes from Papias of Hierapolis in Asia Minor (modern Turkey) about 125–50 CE. His views were preserved by the early Christian historian, Eusebius of Caesarea (ca. 260– ca. 339 CE), generally held by modern scholars to be fairly trustworthy. The “Papias tradition” says, “Then Matthew put together [text variant “wrote”] the sayings [logia] in Matthew the Hebrew [Hebraiois] dialect [dialecto ̄] and each one translated them as he was able” (Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, 3.39.16). By “Matthew” it is very likely that Papias had in mind Jesus' disciple (Mark 3:18; Matt. 10:3; Luke 6:15; Acts 1:13). In Matthew – and only in Matthew – “Matthew” is identified as “the toll collector” (Matt. 10:3: ), the one previously said to have been sitting at the “toll booth” (Matt. 9:9:) near Capernaum (the northwest corner of the Lake of Galilee). The parallels in Mark 2:14 and Luke 5:27 call this toll collector “Levi,” not Matthew, but Levi is not in the disciple lists. Modern scholars usually interpret the Papias tradition to mean that Papias thought that Jesus' disciple Matthew the toll collector had assembled a collection of Jesus' sayings in Hebrew (or Aramaic, cf. John 20:16) and then others translated them. (quote from p 302)
As I said we are close to consensus re Casey, Ehrman & Blackwell being reliable sources but do they support the deleted edit? If the edit goes beyond the sources, Why?...and how can we fix it? 13:35, 31 August 2013 Ret.Prof (talk | contribs) .
@In ictu oculi - I am overjoyed. Are you saying that you agree (A) Bart Ehrman, (B) Maurice Casey and (C) Blackwell Companion to the New Testament are reliable sources. If so then I agree with you on the other issues and will let you do the honors of editing "The Gospel of Matthew" from a NPOV!
@ Eusebeus - No need for a topic ban. I have made my point and will be voluntarily stepping back from this topic. - Ret.Prof ( talk) 14:42, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, but, to the OP: WHAT!? Can you cite a reliable source written by a secular scholar that says Ehrman is "fringe"?
Hijiri 88 (
聖
やや) 01:52, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
The site http://bollywoodboxofficenews.com/ has been used as a reference in a large number of articles about Bollywood films and movie stars. As an example, this subpage was used as a source for statements like "[actor's name] is regarded as one of the greatest and most influential actors in the history of Indian cinema", for instance in Mithun Chakraborty and Amitabh Bachchan. I do not dispute the claim that these actors are among the most important Indian movie stars, it's not an unreasonable claim to make. But up until a day or two ago, the site's disclaimer included the text
Film posters and celebrity images on this website are free and open for public use. All Informations Provided in this website are Purely based on unconfirmed media reports, news channel programs and gossips! Some of the compiled data includes Wikipedia statements. Statements and commentaries in this website can be entirely personal opinions and may differ from facts. BOLLYWOODBOXOFFICENEWS.COM will not be held responsible or liable in any loss resulting from the use of the compiled data and associated information.
This can be verified in archive.org; here's the version from Aug 24. Since that rather blatantly signals a non-RS, I went through some 40 articles a couple of days ago and removed all refs to bollywoodboxofficenews.com. Now a few of the refs have been returned with comments like "seems well-researched" and seemingly irrelevant statements about the disclaimer ( [32], [33]) and when I look at the site again the footer has been changed to read
Film posters and celebrity images on this website are free and open for public use. Our film experts and analysts have tried their best to compile the data as acurately as possible and have made honest efforts to keep it factually correct. still, the data is for only informational purpose and BollywoodBoxOfficeNews will not be held responsible or liable in any loss resulting from the use of the compiled data and associated information.
It could be a coincidence that they have changed this right now.... but I really don't think so. The site does not have any hallmarks of being a reliable source, the anonymous "film experts" write very much like gossip columnists or fanboys, and I suspect serious refspamming and tweaking of the disclaimer to seem more trustworthy for the purpose of inserting links on Wikipedia pages. The content is still the same as it was before the tweak of the footer. I would like to see the site blacklisted, but since it's used as a reference I think this noticeboard is where the report needs to be posted, if for no other reason than to check if I'm right in my assessment of the source. -- bonadea contributions talk 09:14, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
I would like to know other people's opinion about bdmilitary.com, a "source" that is the only source on a large number of weapons related articles here on en-WP for claims about the types of weapon systems, and the number of weapons/vehicles/aircraft etc of each system, that are used by the Bangladesh Armed Forces. Claims and figures that in most cases aren't supported by other sites on the 'Net, or are only partially supported (such as for the BTR-80 where sources known to be reliable say 132 vehicles while bdmilitary.com claim over 500...). One such example is a Chinese-made self-propelled artillery piece designated PLZ-45 where bdmilitary.com claims that the Bangladesh Army has a number of battalions of that gun, a claim that is not supported by any other site on the 'Net (a search on Google for "Bangladesh" and "PLZ-45" lists only the WP article, where the source is bdmilitary.com, and a Pakistani forum that states that it got its info from bdmilitary.com). And the Sipri armstrade register has nothing on it, even though they list several other systems that Bangladesh has bought from China (the claimed PLZ-45 deal is not said to be a new deal, but an order placed in 2009 and delivered in 2010-2011, but Sipri still doesn't have anything on it). In addition to that bdmilitary.com has no information about where it gets its material from. As for the site itself the only info that I can find about it is that it is a private site, and not a government site. So what do you think? Thomas.W talk to me 14:28, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
@Thomas.W: I agree with you about the lack of authenticity of bdmilitary.com. However, your figure regarding BTR-80 is not accurate. According to SIPRI arms register, Bangladesh Armed Forces has 232 BTR-80: 14 received in 1994, 78 received between 2001-2002, 60 received in 2006 and 80 received in 2011. Also, the most circulated Bangladeshi newspaper named "Prothom Alo" reported on August 24, 2013 that the government has bought 260 APC, 18 ARV, 15 APC ambulance, 44 3rd generation MBT, 2 helicopters, 18 SPAG and unknown number of Radar for Bangladesh Army in their 4.5 years. A details of the procurement has also been given on the same newspaper: Year 2008-2009 184 x truck - 3 ton - Japan - BDT 79.82 crore ২০০৮-০৯
Year 2009-2010 120 x APC, 10 x ARV, 10 x APC ambulance - Russia - BDT 510.95 crore
Year 2010-2011 44 x MBT-2000 Tank, 3 x Type Type-654 ARV - China - BDT 1201.81 crore 2 x Eurocopter AS365 N3+ Dauphin helicopters - France - BDT 179.42 crore ? X Radar - China - BDT 136.39 crore
Year 2011-2012 18 x Nora B52 SPAG - Serbia - BDT 541.34 crore 113 x Anti-Tank weapon System (unknown type) - Russia - BDT 222.07 crore 140 x APC, 5 x ARV, 5 x APC ambulance - Russia - BDT 651.45 crore
The same source also indicates that the Army also has an ongoing plan to procure"
2 x Aircraft, 3 x missile detection radar, Radio equipment, Multiple Launch Rocket System, lot of Anti-Tank weapons systems, ATGM and more APC.
Source: Prothom Alo. It is a Bengali news paper. Please translate it in English in google translator. [1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamrul512 ( talk • contribs) 11:32UTC, 3 September 2013
=> No issue. My translator worked. I am pasting the translated text as it is for you. Thanks.
Large block of text translated from Bengali to English, though probably not relevant for this particular discussion.
|
---|
15000 crore weapons - Equipment Purchase Special Representative | Updated: 04:39, August 4, at 013 | Print version 19 and Four and a half years of military government purchasesThe former Soviet state of Belarus with the purchase of military equipment and technology exchange agreement said. Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina's visit to Belarus in the last 8 July between the two sides at the time - was the deal. The official said the agreement was not accepted. Awami League government for four and a half years in the military sector, a lot of shopping, but it was never published. At the Armed Forces (Army, Navy and Air), 15 thousand 104 crore for the arms, golabarudasaha various types of military equipment has been purchased. The eight thousand crore equipment purchase agreements with Russia. It is also in the process of purchasing equipment crore. Ministry of Defence sources confirmed the information. past four years in the purchase of military equipment sophisticated night fighter, yuddhajahaja, military helicopters, armored vehicles, missile and radar are different types. armed forces to learn more about business than the first light from the 1 March Inter-PR paridaptarera ( aiesapiara) Principal Staff Officer of the Armed Forces of the information is sought in writing. Aiesapiara are writing in response to the March 5, the National নিরাপত্তাসংশ্লিষ্ট because the answer is not possible. ' Armed Forces Day on November 1 last year, the Prime Minister in his speech on the occasion of the purchase of equipment for a variety of information. 7 February this year Parliament Questions and how to buy military equipment, he said. military purchases in this sector with one of the experts we talked to. They said, if the equipment is kinatei. Our defense - defensive policy should be. However, the attacker struck, we'll strick back, I'll break him continue to attack in front, it just is. retirement from the army, a post office name was not revealed in the light of conditions in the four and a half years in the shop, some people hope - a reflection of what is happening akanksarai. Defense policy because it is not a comprehensive shopping. However, if at any direction of the defense - must have the approval of the Cabinet Committee of Parliament. But he did not do anything. Through discussions with the defense policy not acceptable in the modern building at different times of the Armed Forces of the shopping options are not acceptable at all. Transparency is important, as well as the Gold said. former army chief Mahbubur Rahman said this context, the ability of the defense sector should be increased. In the case of investment required. However, the high-interest loan from Russia have been taken, they have never had. It's so high-interest loans for the events happened. This loan will be paid from the pockets of ordinary people. many shopping: Economic Relations Department of the Ministry of Finance has, from the beginning of the fiscal year 008-09 01 -13 fiscal year - three of the four years for 188 million U.S. dollars, or approximately 15 thousand 104 million of military equipment has been purchased. It has been bought by the army. For four years, five thousand of the 407 million of the 7 million worth of equipment has been purchased. Navy for four thousand 975 crore 49 lakh and the air force for four in 7 of the 13 million dollar equipment purchase. their business outside of Russia loans from the eight crore tanks devastating missile, armored vehicle (APC), pantuna Bridge, training aircraft, military helikaptarasaha the equipment purchase contract has been completed. From 0 to 018 in the April 15 annual installments over 10 years at 4 percent interest loan payments will be. Under the deal, weapons and equipment will be purchased in the 017. 013-14 fiscal year and the defense sector has been allocated a budget of 14 thousand 458 crore. The development of the armed forces of the 8 billion has been allocated. almost 100 million dollars more than the cost of creating the first submarine to complete yuddhajahaja (Submarine) government has decided to purchase. Pekuya upazila in Cox's Bazar Kutubdia channel submarine bases for the land allocation process. The military budget has been allocated to fund 14 percent of the 9. 13 of 88 crore in the previous year. The 011-1 of the fiscal year was allocated 11 thousand 978 crore. army: the current government came to power military and 60 armored vehicles, 18 military rescue vehicle, 15 APC ambulance, 44 third-generation tanks, two helicopters, 18 automatic cannon and military radar purchase. 008-09 79 million in the fiscal year from 8 million in Japan bought 184 tonnes of the truck. The next year is buying from Russia 1 0 armored vehicle (aramarda Personal Carrier - APC), 10 military rescue vehicle (aramarda Recovery vehicle - earabhi) and 10 APC ambulance. 510 crore 95 lakh purchase price of the equipment. Buying from China is 010-11 in fiscal year 81 lakh crore rupees of 01 MB The fourth generation of the 000 model 44 tank recovery vehicle and the military. Two helicopters were bought brand made in France iurokaptara 4 million Rupees 179 crore. In that year, China bought from the radar is the cost of 136 crore 39 lakh. From next year, Serbia 18 automatic cannon (Self - propelada songs - esapigana) is buying 541 crore 34 lakh rupees. Russia seven million rupees from 222 million purchase of 113 tanks and equipment devastating. In the same year Russia 651 crore 45 lakh rupees buy 140 armored vehicles, five rescue vehicle and five APC ambulance. Sources said the Army for two aircraft, the missile detection radar, the radio sampracarakendra, multiple launch rocket systems, as well as some tyankabidhbansi weapons, short-range tyankabidhbansi gaideda uipana, episisaha the government's decision to purchase the equipment. Navy: the Navy for four years 16 new ships have been added. The 11 have been purchased with the assistance of the poor in China sipaiyarde creating five small-sized vessels. 008-09 163 crores in the fiscal year in Italy is buying the Maritime Helicopter. 141 crores were purchased from the same missile emake -1. 836 crore 87 lakh rupees in the next year, two large patrol vessels from China (elapisi) and five small patrol vessels are purchased. 136 crore 93 lakh rupees in the purchase of two ships and a survey of the ship. In addition, 30 of the 54 million to 50 million in China and 159 million missile radar equipment was purchased 64 lakh rupees. 010-11 of the fiscal year are brought to Germany for naval aircraft Maritime daraniyara two brands. The price of the 41 crore 38 lakh 78 thousand taka. On June 3, the last Navy air base's main kurmitolaya inaugurated. 659 crore 39 lakh rupees in the year one thousand two yuddhajahaja bought from China. This year, 65 million were purchased in two phrigeta. transparency Gold Navy Vice Admiral M Farid Habib want to know more about the June 3, said the Navy Gold transparency of all time. No irregularities of any kind. airforce: 009-10 of 33 billion rupees for the fiscal year flight from China is buying sbalpapallara air defense systems (esaeicaoaraedi). -7 F aircraft maintenance facility is to establish the cost of Rs 04 crore. The average time for a flight from China and Mig -7 - 9 aircraft missile from Russia for the purchase of the 7 million from 17 million. 010-11 538 crore in the fiscal year of the fourth generation is buying 16 -7 busy night fighter F-1 and 345 crore rupees to create a Russian helicopter MI esaeica -171. These include Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina on April 9, bimanabahinite. The following year, four MiG - 9 - 119's maintenance cost is 50 lakh crore. The air defense radar buy from China are spending more money in eight of 15. no defense policy, military sources said, in the country there is no defense policy. The four-party alliance government defense policy is taken. It can be stopped. The current government defense ministry parliamentary committee has just talked. However, for the modernization of the armed forces' Forces Goal - the 030 in a five-year term to a four-step plan of the Armed Forces Division. 015 to 011 in the first step, the second step is from 0 to 016 and 0, 0 and 1 in the third step and the fourth step from 0 5 0 and 6 and will be implemented in 030. The Prime Minister gave the approval. The government is in the shop, it was part of the first phase. much logical: defense policy poor countries like Bangladesh, after having spent a large amount of money in the purchase of military equipment, how logical? In response to a question that the former army chief KM Shafiullah said, 'we open, it will depend on the development of our defense policy. The business case must be transparent, so it was not a question. If you need to take to protect themselves secure. 's Needs. ' country is a defense policy. The purpose of the decision is the shopping? Asked Parliamentary Chief Idris Ali said, defense policy own actions, but the Army are in the process, have goals Forces. The aim is also to shop. Gold was the clarity of this 15 crore think not - a question he said his shop is on demand. In the case of any irregularity in the only parliamentary committee may interfere. , but Russia, with eight thousand crore military equipment purchase agreement after the January 1 news conference, the Armed Forces of the Principal Staff Officer (PS) Abu Belal Muhammad Shafiul Huq, the military opacity does not leave any kind of equipment purchases. In the case of all of the comments are being taken. ' BRAC University to Air Commodore (retd) isaphaka Elahi Chowdhury said, if a force must have the capability. If you do not have to leave the keys? Competencies required for military equipment. However, many of these tools cost more, the common people can not think. But whatever the price, shopping of course want to be transparent, so that people do not have any doubt. published in the London January 9 durnitibirodhi international organization Transparency International (tiai) is one report, the risk of corruption in the military sector. National security - of the secret things of the body, such information is not given, the security sector's annual audit report of any debate that does not match. ' the 7 February the government army, held on corruption charges in the Transparency International Bangladesh (FDI) research report Published in FDI Sultana Kamal said, "The military sector of the shopping is not revealed to the public for any information. The lack of sbacchatarao. The Constituent Assembly had not yet been discussed. ' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kamrul512 ( talk • contribs) 12:03 UTC, 3 September 2013 |
"I have been visiting the website for years and never found any material incorrect"? Is that how we determine the reliability of sources here? I don't think so. If Bangladesh has purchased substantial quantities of matériel the fact will almost certainly have been reported in the press, at the very least of the vendor country. Those reports would be better sources. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 00:38, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
I've never seen maps used as reliable source before and there is no specific guidance on WP:RS. It was suggested that because some interpretation is required that it seems to be a form of WP:OR/ WP:SYN. There is an assessment request for Brickens on the Ireland WikiProject assessment page but I find it curious to see links to Google, and other sourced, maps as citations even though they don't actually state the facts alluded to. The article itself appears to have improved quite a bit but I don't know if the citations/reference are regarded as acceptable. I've removed the links to external images on the basis of WP:ELNEVER but the maps concern me. ww2censor ( talk) 12:40, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Many of the "Controversies" in the Zayed University article are sourced to The National (Abu Dhabi). After reading through the article for the latter I'm wondering if the experts here have a sense for the reliability of this news outlet. § FreeRangeFrog croak 16:18, 5 September 2013 (UTC)
Over the past few days, multiple users (myself excluded) have been removing and re-adding sourced information about cast additions, hosts, etc, while debating over whether said sources are reliable. I'm on the fence on the reliability; would anyone else like to look at this? Erpert WHAT DO YOU WANT??? 08:28, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Are these sources
enough to be able to call the 969 Movement anti-Muslim and/or islamophobic without using weasel words like "critics charge that"? // Liftarn ( talk) 11:02, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
Is this site considered reliable? It is a blogspot, but it is operated by Douglas Pucci, who works for TV Media Insights, which is owned by Cross MediaWorks Inc.. All of the information that he posts that can be cross-referenced is factually accurate. He also cites Nielsen as his source. I'd like to use his site to reference ratings numbers for cable shows whose ratings haven't been posted by other sites like Futon Critic or TV by the Numbers.-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 22:00, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
The [teleological argument] is central to creation science [I agree], which was relabeled intelligent design in 1988 [I think this irrelevant for the lead], and in this context it has been called the argument from intelligent design [this is the concern to be discussed here at RSN].
Looking at the source, the concern is that it does not appear to say what it is being used to say. It is apparently simply one example of a book which uses the term "argument from intelligent design" to the refer to "the contemporary argument from intelligent design" on page 147 and does not mention the term anywhere else as far I can make out. Can one example be used to make Wikipedia make an absolute statement as seems to be the case here? P.S. Just as some off-article OR to test how likely this apparent synthesis is to be correct I can find the following in a very quick google books search, and just as a few quick examples (trying to pick respectable looking authors and publishers):-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 09:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
Can I ask for more un-involved remarks specifically about the Sweetman source and how it has currently been used in order to imply that the term "argument from intelligent design" is only ever used in the context of the intelligent design movement please? (Does anyone think it appropriate to move some of the above discussion to a new thread, or to hat it?)-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 14:58, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
I've noticed User:Enkyo2 adding a source from 200 years ago by Isaac Titsingh (translated from a 17th-century work) in countless places around the articles on the Japanese imperial family. Sometimes the source is being used for statements about what happened decades after Titsingh died. Titsingh is mentioned 100 times in List of Emperors of Japan. In many cases Titsingh is being lumped together with a couple of other sources that appear to say different things. I'm wondering if I can be forgiven for requesting a more modern source written in either Japanese or English? Enkyo2 also appears not to understand that most of his uses of this (and other sources) appear to be woefully inadequate ... Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:41, 3 September 2013 (UTC)
According to John Whitney Hall, who was the general editor of The Cambridge History of Japan, "Titsingh's Illustrations of Japan shows the result of careful translation from Japanese sources, as does also the posthumous Annales des Empereurs du Japon, which is a translation of the Ōdai-ichiran." This sentence comes from Hall's 1955 book, Tanuma Okitsugu, 1719-1788, at pp. 94-95.
Articles about Japanese emperors and Japanese era names -- and many other articles about Japanese events, places, government, history and historical figures -- are congruent in the similar foundation of research and cited sources which supports them. The array of articles is based on classic sources which are put in context by the Wikipedia article on Historiography of Japan. For example, when the reliable sources below are cited here, the reader is presented with links to other Wikipedia articles, including articles about the cited text itself, about its original author and about the translator:
Another unrelated use of the term "revenge" here was not encouraged by acknowledgment or response; but Hijiri88 continues "framing" a personal attack strategy. This needs to stop. The pretext needs to be rejected in order for this targeting to begin to stop. For example, in an article about any emperor of Japan, adding cite support from the Imperial Household Agency website is not in itself provocative; but Hijiri88's edit summary responds to a perceived "pointy" provocation.
A primary source can be cited as a primary source, which Enkyo appears to do in some contexts. The primary sources Enkyo is using, including Annales, are not outside of the mainstream, as evidenced by the high-quality and reliable translations available. If Enkyo desires to use these to make sources other than "the traditional dates", etc., he should justify that with other sources. The rest of this discussion appears to be a personal spat. Shii (tock) 18:23, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Article: Denise Crosby Source: link Content: Can the link be used to reference why Crosby left Star Trek: The Next Generation?
A couple editors and I are having a discussion on the talk page of the article about whether we can find a reliable source that says that Crosby was let go by the producers of the show due to her posing for Playboy magazine. The above source was suggested as a possible source for the claim that she was fired but there's some hesitation when it comes to the idea of whether the source itself is reliable. Another editor has said that it reads like a "rant" and I tend to agree but would like another opinion. Thanks, Dismas| (talk) 09:56, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
I have noticed a number of flags for US towns uploaded to Commons and put on various pages here by User:Illegitimate Barrister that are sourced exclusively to "Flags of the World. The site's homepage explicitly says "Pages are edited by volunteer editors — qualifications include a keen interest in flags and a willingness to learn html editing"—it's essentially a wiki, and those are generally not treated as reliable. The site even comes with a disclaimer stating: "The quality of images and news varies very much: the website contains not only well-known flags but also sketches and rumours, often seized on the spot from a TV report or a magazine. In any case we disclaim any responsibility about the veracity and accuracy of the contents of the website." I suspect that many flags uploaded to that website are nothing more than inventive fabrications made by overeager editors.
For instance, take File:Flag of Smith Island, Maryland.png. Running a Google search on it excluding Wikipedia and FOTW reveals nothing much, and a search-by-image very little in the way of similar images—only flags derived from the FOTW source—and no webpage on Smith Island (e.g. [45], [46]) shows any similar sort of flag. Moreover, I spent several days on the island this past August, and did not see it or anything resembling it even once. Either I've missed something major both on the web and in real life, or this isn't a real flag. IB seems to have uploaded dozens of similar files, and I am suspicious that a number of them are similarly fabricated.
Now, I realise that Commons has its own set of rules and what happens here often has little effect there. However, I would like for these questionable flags to be removed from our pages until they can be properly vetted (I have already done so for Smith Island), and perhaps a decision here could hasten action on Commons to have these flags, which are currently marked as "official", marked as unofficial/fanciful. ~~ Lothar von Richthofen ( talk) 04:21, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
Does anyone know if Koreanindie.com is an acceptable source? It includes a blog section, but I'm not sure whether the entire website would count as a blog or not. It does include a staff [47], though I don't know whether the website is their full time job or just something they volunteer for. The bottom of the page includes the text "Designed by WPSHOWER". I'm not familiar with WPSHOWER, but its website [48] says that it creates "Wordpress themes". I know that Wordpress is more or less a blog, so I assume that this would make anything designed by WPSHOWER unreliable, but wanted to check to see if anyone knows more about this first. -- Jpcase ( talk) 16:34, 10 September 2013 (UTC)
Is Figshare a reliable source for wikipedia entries?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:c:4d80:30d:3d2a:62ba:fefb:233c ( talk • contribs)
In the article about Narendra Modi, There is a section "Uttarakhand Controversy". This section has neither any verifiable authentic primary source nor citation about any authentic claim by the party concerned. It clearly violates the policy about BLP.
The Uttarakhand controversy is poorly sourced, includes unverified statements (unreliable sources of Times of India which mentions as "sources in BJP"; name of no big leader/ press statement cited), without any original reserach/investigation. This was even clarified by the newspaper later.
Hence this section needs to be deleted as it is in clear violation of Wikipedia policies(policy no 2, 3 and fourth core content policy) of BLP.
Apart from being poorly sourced, the section is an act of vandalism.
And since the article is protected, one cannot edit it The sources linked to the article are [49] [50] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.144.141 ( talk • contribs) 02:59, 29 August 2013 (UTC)