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 155 | ← | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 |
The lead of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan contained the following line:
The following two "sources" were given for this line:
Unfortunately, those two sources are almost exact copies of the Wikipedia-article. The Wikipedia-lead got changed to this specific text in 2007;
Behura's article is from 2010; the Study Guide is from 2012. So, these sources are not WP:RS, IMO. This has been discussed at Talk:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan#Lead (continued). Comments are welcome. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The Shwebomin claimed to be a pretender of Burmese Throne. I have never heard of his existence before. His name is never mentioned in official genealogy nor in any Burmese history book. The source cited is an interview on a talk show, "Defining Movement". I have never heard of that show before. Could it be a good source for BLP? SWH® talk 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Source : Guardian.co.uk blog http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.comment
Article: Carl Lewis
Content:
but recognized by some experts as a combination of drugs used as masking agents for anabolic steroids
I am disputing with another editor ( User_talk:BearMan998) the use of a blog-like comment on the Guardian.co.uk to assess the truth of certain claims related to the field of medicine. First of all the guardian blog vaguely reports that
...tested positive for the same combination of drugs, which some experts believe can mask more serious drugs such as anabolic steroids
and that significantly differs from what is reported in the wikipedia article as in one case there is a supposition ("believe", "can") and in the other a proper assertion ("recognized", "used as"). Second and most important, the author of the blog in the Guardian reports quite a vague statement on the use of stimulants as masking agents. He doesn't cite who the experts are or any related work, or a case study that can lead to a verifiable scientific source. That said I can't find any evidence or hint among scientific publications or dissertations about such claims. Stimulants and masking agents are two distinct categories in doping medicine and it seems to me there is nowhere consensus or knowledge that certain stimulants or a combination of them can result into the effects of a masking agent for steroids. I asked the other editor if he can corroborate with other reliable sources what is claimed in the Guardian blog but didn't give me any hint. He asked me to provide a source that counterclaims that in the context of the Lewis Guardian blog, which seems to me not a sensible request as nobody in the world of science would in any case bother to disprove something that is not proven. He is willing to accept the statement of the blog, whose author has not a reputation in the field of medicine I guess, as a reliable source of scientific consensus/awareness over the relationship between stimulants and masking agents. To my experience vague statements like "someone believes that..." are unacceptable sources of truth and are not worth mention in an encyclopedia. Moreover in the field of science even blank suppositions without any specific motivation are worthless. Since the statement in the Guardian sounds like an isolated rumor rather than an objective verifiable fact I feel it shouldn't be reported on any page in the Wikipedia to support a certain thesis. What is your take? JJCasual 23:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is seriesnow.com considered reliable? It looks like IMDB, which I know has been judged to be unreliable. There doesn't seem to be any info at the website as to who owns it, who edits, or anything else to be used as a guide as to quality. Is used at Ricardo Chávez, and about 64 other articles [1]. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is Internet Broadway Database a WP:RS?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
In the article Ashok Sundari none of the sources being used seem reliable. They are proiding wrong information. These are the websites:
These sources say
The story of Ashoka Sundari is found in Padma Purana. She is born when Shiva and Parvati encounter the wish-fulfilling tree and Parvati asks for a daughter, who will give her company when she is alone in Kailash. The wish is instantly granted. She is called Ashoka as she got rid of Parvati’s shok or sorrow and Sundari because she is beautiful.
Ashoka Sundari was destined to marry Nahusha, grandson of Yayati of the lunar dynasty. There is reference to a demon who tries to abduct her but she escapes and curses the demon that he will be killed by her husband. Ashoka Sundari and Nahusha marry in the hermitage of Sage Vashisht.
Ashoka Sundari’s story also comes from the vrat-kathas of Gujarat.
However I cannot find anywhere that she is either mentioned in Padma Purana or any Vrat-kathas of Gujrat. Also they are also providing wrong information. They say that Ashok SUndari married Nahusha and he was the grandson of Yayati. However Nahusha actually maried Viraja, the daughter of Pitrs. Also Yaytai was son of Nahusha not his grandfather. This is mentioned in these sources which are scholary sources:
Also here is a short translation of Padma Purana which does mention Nahusha and Yayati as his son but does not mention any Ashok Sundari:
Mythological articles are scholary articles and only that information should be added which has scholarly consensus according to WP:RS. The sources used in the article Ashok Sundari are providing wrong information. Therefore, they are probably unreliable or their reliabilty cannot be established. This Ashok Sundari appeared in TV show Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev and from there probably some people got an idea she existed in real. Actually she is just a character in a play by Shambuprasad Dunghel. I can not find any scholary source which says that she exists in Hindu mythology and also there is no scholarly consensus on her at all. I think this article is more based on personal opinion rather than reliable sources. I would like to ask other users and administrators whether those sources used in this article Ashok Sundari are reliable at all and whether they should be removed. Thank you. MythoEditor ( talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Is Ballotpedia a reliable source? I see it used both for election information and for general details about BLPs. Dougweller ( talk) 14:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/terrorist_outfits/NLFT.HTM
Seems reliable to me, but it has been pointed by one user to be unreliable, kindly have a look at the talk pages too, and recent edits. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
[3] from SATP is used as a source for the claims:
I can not find anything in that link remotely supporting any part of those claims.
[4] is used as a claim for a group being "Christian terrorists" while no such claim is made or inferred by the source at all. The source, in fact, quotes the JMB as calling themselves "soldiers of Allah" and that it seeks "to establish Islamic rule." I suggest that it is being misused as a source in "Christian terrorism."
[5] is used for the claim:
Where the source makes no such claim - it is simply the Indian statute.
[6] is used as a source for the claim:
That source refers to Christianity as being a reason for a split in a group -- not ascribing it as a primary focus of anything ("lavish lifestyles" outrank religion as a reason for the split per the source)
[7] is apparently a government press release run by the BBC ised to support:
Which is not found in this source.
[8] also appears to be a press release used for:
Amazingly enough, iterating a misused cite does not make the second use valid.
[9] is used for:
Problem is that the source makes no claim of "terrorism" at all, and it states In a statement, the NLFT said it wanted all tribespeople in Tripura to become Christians because the practice of Hinduism has led to them being marginalised by people of Bengali origin living in the state. This appears to be more of a religious issue than one of "Christian terrorism."
[10] Rediff is used for the claim:
Problem is that the article lead states
And also
When one uses a source, one well ought not misrepresent what the source says in order to promote single sentences mined from it. Cheers -- tired of going through all the misused, abused and non-reliable sources given here. Collect ( talk) 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
For now, unless I see third-party sources that verity the site's trustworthiness and neutrality (or even their fact checking) I personally will not accept this as a reliable source. Editors are urged to find the reliable sources in published media that verify facts in the article; after all, one would assume that the SATP likewise uses reliably sourced information to write up their articles. Drmies ( talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This does not solve the problem of the SATP site. If an article is signed, one could suppose it's more acceptable as a reliable source; I don't really see that. I don't accept such a portal/club unless their reliability is verified (like, for instance, in the case of the SPLC, even if that site can be argued to have a POV) and, barring such independent credentials, we should be very wary of accepting the conclusions drawn in their article, even of the primary facts it reports. After all (I think Itsmejudith said that too?), those facts ought to be found in other sources as well, English or not.
One more thing: Collect may not have been 100% spot-on in their assessment, but they were pretty good at it, and the larger point here is that we should edit carefully and conservatively in such contentious subjects: excision is to be preferred over careless and/or poorly references inclusion. That is my opinion as an administrator as well as an editor. Drmies ( talk) 17:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Collect writes " [14] is apparently a government press release run by the BBC ised(sic) to support:
In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years Which is not found in this source. First, I see no evidence to call this a press release run by the BBC. It looks to me like an interview (eg "Mr Sarkar told the BBC") by the BBC's East India correspondent. It says "Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested late on Monday with a large quantity of explosives." and "The chief minister said that Mr Halam confessed to buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for the past two years." Collect, why are you saying it is not found in this source? You could argue that we should attribute the last statement to the government minister, but that's not the same as saying it isn't in the source. Dougweller ( talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Are news sights as in wetpaint.com acceptable not like the fan based ones where anyone can write anything and not the tabloids that spread roumors but the reliable ones that use quotes and real live interviews that also cite their own sources they got their information from?
In addition, it's important to look and see if a site has editorial control, that articles are vetted and that it is independent of commercial and other interests that might interfere with their "reporting", if that's what it is. Now, Wetpaint, like most such sites, has an "About" section, at http://www.wetpaint-inc.com/about/. Read it--I just did, and I lost all confidence in that site's reliability. The only interest there is money: "Our test and measurement system delivers real-time audience insights on what they desire, coupled with targeted recommendations to program the right content, at the right time, for each target audience. These insights and recommendations are all driven by cutting-edge analytical methods applied to massive amounts of data ingested into our platform." A real news organization gives the people what is true and verified and important, not "what they want".
So this one, no. The next one? Look to see what they're trying to do and how they try to do it. I hope I'm not aiming too high. Drmies ( talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
this edit,,,,,, small mortars and rockets
Mass media reported:
ITAR-TASS official text of the [1], [2], [3], [4]
and Russia-24 (TV channel) free copyright *Syrian diary* [5] *the battle for Syria* [6] official video documentary *Syrian diary* [7] official video documentary and the official text of the *the battle for Syria* [8] video documentary Russian, but with English subtitles: *Syrian diary* [9] *the battle for Syria* [10]
and Russia-1 (TV channel) free copyright *truth of the war* [11] official video documentary *truth of the war* [12]
and NTV (Russia) all of the shooting from the territory of the opposition, official video documentary *The territory of AK* [14] free copyright *The territory of AK* [15]: all this also claim (interview) commanders of the opposition (several different groups). In summary. Syrian opposition is fighting against Assad, and against *not Islamic* laws of religion. And against anything, not named (other troops Syrian opposition), but these groups are officially recognized by terrorists, but they do not give interviews and they are also part of the opposition.
sources ITAR-TASS Russia-24 (TV channel) [16] Russia-1 (TV channel) look. if you are against such a contribution (if you are against this editing). please. detailed answer why.
this edit removed, said - Undoing pov pushing and use of unreliable sources. I changed the edits. now there is no such problem? pov? unreliable sources - it is impossible. all sources is very authoritative media, they work *news*, worldwide, many years. if you do not have a source that ITAR-TASS's a lie (specifically those articles that I used), if you have no source (*battle for Syria* it's a lie). you can't delete my edits. it is outside the rules. in addition, I give the translation. I give references are free from copyright. in addition, the recording of TV ether (news release) this is the authoritative source. this is a verifiable source. moreover, *the battle for Syria* is a documentary film. other sources (if there are sources without translation tell me and I mend). but you can't simply delete all at once. my sources have become in Wikipedia. you can read about them that is large media (news). Rqasd ( talk) 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The website
www
This was mentioned above but I want to start a separate thread on this. Cram101 is a publisher of e-text study guides, and should not be used as a source although it is used at the moment in several articles. [19]. This review by an academic of the study guide for his textbook points out that they are written by computer. In this case it failed to pick up vital points, defined (in a textbook on economics) 'monopoly' as a board game, and to avoid copyright violations picked up definitions from a number of websites, including Wikipedia. Another quote from the review, "here's how "attitude" is defined: "In heraldry, an attitude is the position in which an animal, fictional beast, mythical creature, human or human-like being is emblazoned as a charge, supporter or crest." Other sites call it a scam. Ripoff Report says [20] "You can look at any book on the site and cross-reference the Chapter 1 "notes" with Wikipedia. It's clear that some script just pulls keywords and then links the corresponding Wikipedia article. " Kill on sight. Dougweller ( talk) 12:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this book [21], written by three authors two of which have PhDs, a reliable source for biographies that we already have on members of the Strode family? Camelbinky ( talk) 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.malmesbury.com/malmesbury-history/961-hannah-twynnoy.html categorizes the death of Hannah Twynnoy as "unusual". I can find no reliable sources that make that characterization, not even the indirect source used in the article, http://www.athelstanmuseum.org.uk/people_hannah_twynnoy.html. Can a community directory be considered a reliable source for categorizing deaths as "unusual" pursuant to them being included in List of unusual deaths?— Kww( talk) 02:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It's worth observing, possibly, that some of this discussion seems predicated on the idea that list of unusual deaths has high sourcing standards and this site doesn't meet them. In fact, the list defines itself as unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. But a lot (most?) of the entries have only one source, and a sampling suggests not all of these have any sources explicitly addressing unusualness. By the actual standards of the list (as opposed to the proclaimed standards), the site (Athelstan Museum [23], not malmesbury.com, which is just echoing it) is a perfectly adequate source for what is clearly an unusual event, if we characterise it as an example of the type "death by a dangerous species in a place where the species is not endemic". On a related note: the list would be a lot more digestible if some attempt at organisation was made, instead of just dumping entries which make the grade by some apparently fairly arbitrary standard into a chronological list. Categorisation by eg, location of death, deaths by cause of death, etc. Podiaebba ( talk) 01:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I am looking for consensus whether the following source is considered reliable.
Freaky Frog Friday at Foxnews.com. The link is here. There are several comments in the article which oppose certain research findings and methodology of the subject Tyrone Hayes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The author of the source is publisher of a website, JunkScience.com. However this material is covered under news at Foxnews. An example of the material includes:
The most dubious part of Hayes' experiment is the claim that frogs exposed to the lower concentration of atrazine (0.1 ppb) actually had triple the rate of deformities of those exposed to the higher concentration (25 ppb). That violates a basic law of toxicology that the higher the dose the greater the rate and severity of toxic effects.
These comments are echoed by others too but this source seems strongest. Similar material is found in an op-ed at Forbes magazine online. JodyB talk 11:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a mini-edit war at White Latin American about the figure used for the Colombia in the pop box. The original ref s;ays 17.5M and is Colombia: A Country Study 5th edition (2010) [24]. This is being changed to 11.2 from the same study's 1st edition (1990) [25]. A second ref for the lower figure was also added in the latest revert - an anonymous and undated Google doc titled "EL HABITAT Y EL SER HUMANOL: Etnográfica de Colombia" [26]
There has been some discussion on the article talk page [27] and on my personal talk page [28] which is getting nowhere and we are both approaching WP:3RR. It seems obvious to me, but just in case I'm wrong can somebody please confirm a) which edition of the Colombia study we should be using - 1990 or 2010 and b) if the Google doc is WP:RS in this instance.
Tobus ( talk) 08:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is
Dogecoin.
The sources being used are the following:
Other than links to non-reliable source cryptocurrency related websites (coin exchanges and whatnot, not news sites), these are the only sources for the article. Are any of these sources reliable enough to base an article on? The subject of the article has not received significant coverage in any mainstream news source, other than a
mention in a list of cryptocurrencies in a column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
atomicthumbs‽ (
talk) 00:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to add six more sources to the boat of links. By this time, it's starting to catch on in other countries, so some of these are going to be in different languages, and may require translation.
Just adding to the workload, guys! [ citation needed] 12:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
[29] has been repeatedly added to this high profile biography.
The claim made is Lindbergh's outspoken isolationism led to surveillance and investigation by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. A Bureau report in June 1941 discredited Lindbergh with unsubstantiated statements that he associated with pimps and prostitutes and flew bootleg whisky from Canada to Montana. Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. "Cloak and Dollar: A History of American Secret Intelligence" Yale University Press (2003) p. 97
The source continues: 'Hoover knew how to increase and exploit the unpopularity of his targets in order to enhance the FBI's power and budget.
The query is - is this source properly used for the direct implication that Lindbergh did consort with "pimps, prostitutes and bootleggers" where the actual source makes clear that the allegations were unfounded and based on Hoover's misuse of power to help the FBI's power and budget? . IOW, ought unfounded allegations about a dead person be added to a biography where the source is not specifically about that person at all, but presents it as an example of poor investigations? I rather think the source, in fact, is more about the misuse of the FBI than about the sins of Lindbergh. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 01:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd really like to use this in Earthless discography (it's the only source I can find that says anything about a split album I want to add to the article). Problem is, it's a Blogger website, and as far as I know, blogs in general (especially Blogger blogs) are not considered acceptable. Or is this to be determined on a case-by-case basis? Anyway, here's the link: http://psychedelicbaby.blogspot.com/2011/04/earthless-my-interview-with-isaiah.html Lazy Bastard Guy 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Would someone please provide a third party opinion at Talk:United States#Quality of sources on corporate tax incidence as it pertains to the content change at [33] and proposed at Talk:United States#Tax incidence? Thanks in advance. EllenCT ( talk) 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Hello? EllenCT ( talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello there!
I am new to Wikipedia, and have started an article about a public person from my country. There is not a lot of (reliable) information on the internet, BUT I have a lot of newspaper artciles about this person.
The information in those articles is of great value, and I would like to wikify my entry using these sources.
A) What's the copyright policy for newspaper articles ranging from 1940-1970? B) If I can use those, how do I link them to the reference-part? Should I take pictures of said articles, upload them onto an image-board (e.g. imgur,...) and then link the source to the picture?
Thank you a lot for you help,
Ezekwail
Do CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/ TheRichest.com qualify as reliable sources?
Both sites carry disclaimers [34] [35] disclaiming reliability for their sites' information, and their articles don't contain any sources or explanations for their assertions. Trivialist ( talk) 16:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Are the current sources sufficient to support the statement "Bloom worked as a financial economist"? The first is his profile as an MEP, which presumably he wrote himself. The page won't download for me. The second is a short BBC report that simply has "an economist". BLP; the material is not negative about the subject. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I caught an IP adding links to BibleGateway.com to a few articles this afternoon. Doing a search it seems like it's used quite a bit for whatever reason. It just seems like one of those sites that harvests searches for ad revenue, should we really be encouraging its use? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
See [36] and Talk:British National Party#Far-right? Right-wing populism which had 2 sources that look RS has also been removed. Dougweller ( talk) 17:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This is being used at List of aircraft carriers in service. I believe this is a blog.
Reliable... yes? no? Thank - theWOLFchild 07:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I note that the following sites are used as sources for the history of the Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey. None of these sources are being used to cite a specific statement, however the content of the article appears to be broadly consistent with the content of these sources. -
In favor of these sources, even the wiki site does appear to have some kind of editorial policy. The blog is by a notable local politician who who may be an expert on the history of her borough. They all appear to be honest attempts to document local history, and there are no obvious contradictions between these sources. However they are all obviously self-published.
Question: In light of the above claims, can we make a case for considering the above sources to be reliable enough in this context? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I know that a source does not need to be available on the web to be used as a reliable source; but if the source was only on the web, and the web page is now not locatable on the host website, is it still an acceptable source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the Webarchive link. (And yes, the UNDUE is a matter that will need to be addressed, but it has been an uphill battle to get the editors to understand and agree that WP:V and WP:OR and WP:RS apply - the sophistication necessary for them to understand and begin to apply WP:UNDUE is a battle for another day.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Dispute over whether the info box should date it to the 2nd c. BC, per 2ary sources, or to the 5th c. BC, per 1ary sources and The Hindu newspaper. — kwami ( talk) 04:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting some seriously mixed signals when it comes to the site "Son of the Bronx". It's a site that details Nielsen ratings for a lot of cable shows. Strikes against it: it's a Blogspot, and its editor isn't /super notable. Tallies for it: the information is cited to Nielsen itself, its editor worked for TV Media Insights (also here), and from what cross-referencing I can do, it seems that the info checks out. It's being used on several pages to cite information, and I'd love to use it to cite the missing info for List of Adventure Time episodes that TV by the Numbers and the Futon Critic et al have not provided. Thanks!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Have we, as a community, come to a consensus on whether About.com is a reliable source or not? – Quadell ( talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
One user has opined that we should never use About.com as a source. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. – Quadell ( talk) 20:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Past discussions of about.com have been mixed, and (from my reading) seem to indicate that the result depends strongly on whether there is some other reason for viewing the author of an article there as an expert on the subject (much like WP:SPS). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#About.com, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#About.com. (I looked these up for a discussion in Talk:Tartine that also involves reliability of an about.com source.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thousands of articles are citing Our Campaigns which, while not strictly an open wiki per this page, seems unambiguously unreliable per WP:SPS. This has been brought up on here a couple of times before with little to no response. I don't know how one gets started or what the criteria are but I think a large-scale cleanup might be necessary? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
In regards to Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and related Talk:DNA history of Egypt and Talk:Population history of Egypt, There was an earlier discussion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#DNA_Tribes.2C_a_private_genetics_company.2C_being_used_as_a_source
The Rameses peer-reviewed study: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268 The Rameses DNA Tribes running the data from the peer-reviewed study: http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf The Amarna peer-reviewed study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 The Amarna DNA Tribes running the data from the peer-reviewed study: http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf
These studies are being used for this content:
" Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages: In December 2012, Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs and his research team released DNA studies of Rameses III (who historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages) and his son have found he carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a, and as a result clustered most closely with Africans from the African Great Lakes (335.1), Southern Africa (266.0) and Tropical West Africa (241.7) and not Europeans (1.4), Middle Easterners (14.3) or peoples from the Horn of Africa (114.0). [17]
Earlier studies from January 2012 of the Amarna mummies had reached similar conclusions with the average affiliations of the mummies found to be Southern African (326.94), Great Lakes African (323.76) and Tropical West African (83.74) and not Middle Eastern (6.92), European (5.21) or with peoples from the Horn of Africa (14.79). [18] As no other studies of other Ancient Egyptian mummies are available, the questions as to the genetic affiliations of other pharaohs and figures (such as Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh of Egypt from 51 B.C. following the Greek Conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 300 B.C.) is yet undetermined."
Regarding the use of DNA tribes as a source due to the fact that it is a private company. Is it fine to use as a supporting source to the two peer-reviewed studies it is based on? The idea is that DNA Tribes took the data from the two peer reviewed studies which are cited in Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt and Population history of Egypt and ran it through to create the genetic distance information. Is it then okay to add the DNA tribes article as an additional source? This is an issue that arises with most scientific studies because most individuals are not sophisticated enough to read and understand the tables themselves. Using a supplementary study is useful if no arguments have been made as to fraud in the running of the supplied data. Thoughts are welcome, especially in light of the historically sensitive nature of this topic. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be great to get some other voices from editors who were not involved in the previous discussion to get an unbiased perspective.
Andajara120000 (
talk) 12:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC) How does one bring in other editors? I am new to this--or do editors come in voluntarily once they are alerted to this page. Regards,
Andajara120000 (
talk) 12:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe what DNA Tribes did was run the data provided in the peer reviewed studies to determine genetic affiliations. As such the crux of the matter is the reliability of the running of the data. My opinion is unless there is some evidence of fraud in the use of the data in the peer reviewed studies that DNA Tribes should be treated as any other source. The special status that DNA Tribes is getting seems strange to me. DNA Tribes is just like any researcher evaluating the data provided and giving its viewpoint- just like an author of a book or article evaluates the data presented and provides their analysis. What exactly is the difference? That has not yet been articulated in this discussion. We have the two peer-reviewed genetic studies at hand, we have the two analyses by DNA Tribes based on those genetic studies---none of the editors have provided any sources as to why the analyses by DNA Tribes are suspect. Perhaps a note can be placed as to any concerns with the analysis, just like in DNA history of Egypt or Population history of Egypt there are disclaimers as to the R1b findings for King Tut (including that the genetic researchers may not have even used King Tut's remains) but the info still remains for the readers to evaluate. I don't think any such claims have been made in regards to DNA Tribes. That is my take but other voices are very welcome. Regards Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
What I found on Wikipedia:BIASED
Shortcut: WP:BIASED seems to support including DNA Tribes and placing a disclaimer and NOT deleting it altogether. Am I missing something?? "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think what had been argued earlier was that there might a financial bias of the source---is that still the argument? If so a disclaimer as to the financial bias should do the trick or am I missing something? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
DNA Tribes has been used as a source in the following diverse Wikipedia articles:
Maghrebis Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas Tunisia Asian people Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
As this issue keeps coming up I have struck through the edits of a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames - as the sockmaster is not allowed to edit, edits by their socks can be reverted or struck through where appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
[39] is being cited in a discussion at Talk:Pamela Geller as a reliable source for calling her "right wing" in Wikipedia's voice in a BLP. I think it possible that the publisher does not meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources, that the book is not peer-reviewed, that the source appears to be possibly less academic in value than has been asserted on the talk page, and that there are many statements in the book which might indicate it is of little value in making contentious claims about living people. What say ye all? Collect ( talk) 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how many editors involved in this discussion actually read this book? Or did you simply perform a some Google search and this was one of the results? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Do sources cited at gun control need to mention gun control? I just removed a cited (highly biased) source which never mentions gun control. [40]
My edit was reverted by North8000 with the edit summary: Undid revision Goethean (talk) Undid removal of reference. The reference is supporting the material which cited, your claim that it it must include other terminology has no basis [42] Rummel is being cited in order to support material about Nazism in the gun control article, despite the fact that no reputable historian has been cited who contends that Nazism is a significant part of the topic of gun control, and despite the fact that some of the sources don't even mention gun control. — goethean 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first time here, my query is about a reference used in the article about the singer-songwriter Tina Arena. I'm trying to establish if The Richest website data ( http://www.therichest.com) is regarded as reliable.
On 26 December 2013, an editor used this site as a source for a statement in the lead section, that
Tina Arena has an estimated net worth of $245 million
A recent Australian Rich List of entertainers, including singers ( BRW Rich 50) doesn't list her at all, although that may be because she lives in France these days. She does not appear on the BRW Australian Rich 200 ( BRW Rich 200). Both those lists are very well regarded and regularly quoted by all mainstream Australian media outlets.I cannot be definitive, but I do not recall seeing her name on other Australian rich lists either (I am Australian) and an amount of $245 million would qualify her to top such lists.
I believe she has sold around eight million records ( The Artist’s Story:Tina Arena) and is a busy live performer but the amount (subjectively) seems very high, therefore I am wondering if The Richest website is reliable (I'm not saying it isn't, but I have not heard of it before). Any comments appreciated. Thanks. Melbourne3163 ( talk) 21:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your speedy responses. I have now read the discussion you highlighted and both your comments. This is most helpful and I have removed the unreliable reference (put there in good faith by another editor). Cheers. Melbourne3163 ( talk) 23:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Could I have some opinions on whether this report would be considered a reliable source? Someone has used it as a source, and it looks more like pr talking points to me. http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/131202135150-WhyEverySeriousEnvironmentalistShouldFavourFracking.pdf It would never make it through peer review - or on WP - because the sources in it often don't support the statements, and many are outdated, but those issues are not related to my question - My question is whether this report would be considered a reliable source. Thanks, Smm201`0 ( talk) 18:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Public-health benefits of hydraulic fracturing
Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Principal of the China Shale Fund, an organization whose purpose is "to prove that shale gas can indeed be profitable and viable in China," [19] argues that the public health benefits from shale gas made available by fracking, by displacing harmful air pollution from coal, far outweigh their combined environmental costs. In a 2013 report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Muller writes that air pollution, mostly from coal burning, kills over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world. [20]
I submit that this source is reliable in supporting our use of this opinion of a distinguished scientist, on a topic within his interests and expertise. Others at the Talk page discussion agreed, and Smm201`0 is close to a WP:SPA on this general topic. He appears to be opposed to "fracking." -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if uninvolved editors cast an eye over this talk page discussion. The way I see it is that any number of people can be wrong. 1000 sources saying the same thing, mistakenly, does not make it true. And if 1000 other people claim that something is not true, then neither camp should be considered reliable. Ordinarily we would just apply WP:NPOV, but in this case I think it might be better to simply treat both camps as superfluous. Sorry for being so vague, but it would be quicker for you to simply read the discussion than for me to try and summarize things here. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign ( talk) 00:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you everybody for your comments and links. Much appreciated. Kind regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Blueboar. That was precisely the point I was trying to make. And special thanks to Mangoe for going to the article in question and getting stuck in. Case closed, and Happy New Year! nagualdesign ( talk) 03:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
My two cents: as a general rule, Wikipedia should be based on reliable (read: not infallible) sources, but it also shouldn't contradict itself. If two RSes contradict each other, we should be citing each as an opinion, unless it can be established that one of the RSes is probably wrong (say, all but one RS say one thing, and that one says the opposite). In the latter case, consensus should be easily attainable to remove the statement that is only backed up by a reliable source that just happens to be wrong. 182.249.240.38 ( talk) 08:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is being spammed with this (new) site. Is it a reliable source? Should the site be removed as a source? Should it be listed at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist? I thought posting here would be a good first step. Please advise.
Spammers:
A little digging shows that this user has a clear conflict of interest:
This user's name is from Delnex Media Private Limited who launched Fundoofun.com:
See also: Wikipedia article Fundoofun.com
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone look at this? The source is a lecture by Hideo Levy and uploaded by Stanford University's official YouTube account. 182.249.240.18 ( talk) 04:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age Martha C. Nussbaum Harvard University Press p 195. is proffered as a source for asserting in Wikipedia's voice that Pamela Geller is "right wing." Is it properly used therefore? [43]
The book is specifically about religion and intolerance, primarily Christian and Muslim issues, and is not about politics in general, nor about the political spectrum at all, and the single use of "right wing" for Geller is as an adjective on one single page. The book also refers to such topics as Muslim circumcision where it states as a fact that it is not different from US male circumcision (page 53) and on page 125 that female genital mutilation of minors should only be barred if it "impairs sexual pleasure or other bodily functions." The author clearly states her positions in the first person "it seems to me" and thus at most the "right wing" comment made in a first person narrative and not in a study of the political spectrum is, at most, first person opinion, and, at worst, an example of googlemining for a book, any book, using "right wing" and "Pamela Geller" in the book. My own position is that opinions (and a book written in the first person is "opinion") must e'er be cited and ascribed as opinion. (review: Nussbaum is one of America's leading liberal thinkers. In The New Religious Intolerance, she turns her attention to the rise of antireligious—and specifically anti-Muslim—zealotry since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (Damon Linker New York Times Book Review 2012-07-22)) Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated to the discussion of THIS proposed source
|
---|
|
This source is reliable for use within the purview of its subject matter (religion), but not within the context of the use being proposed (politics). Context is a controlling factor here per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ("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 in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.") It seems that someone is reaching for a source outside the realm of politics because none could be found otherwise. Roccodrift ( talk) 16:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This sources is reliable for the description of Geller as "right-wing". Please refrain from carrying on the debate here. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Ten, don't sweat it; that's just a straw man. I'm all for the New York Times and Village Voice being used, although I'm not in favor of the latter being abused to confuse libertarianism with liberalism. MilesMoney ( talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
At the article for Taking Over, an album by the band Overkill, User:Paranoid90 keeps adding a source which he insists is adequate proof of the album having sold a certain amount of copies. Currently, his addition to the article reads:
"As of 2011, Taking Over had sold over 100,000 copies in the U.S."
However, a simple browser search reveals no mention whatsoever of Taking Over within the source provided. A very fleeting mention of album sales is made at some point by the interviewee, who is a bandmember:
"How I could have sold over 100,000 units on Atlantic records and not received one penny!"
... but in context, these 100,000 units do not explicitly correspond to Taking Over. How could it, when the album itself is not even mentioned in any shape or form? Therefore I maintain that the source is NOT reliable in confirming such a definitive statement regarding album sales figures, and that I am correct in removing it. Nonetheless, User:Paranoid90 chooses to edit war over it rather than find a more reliable source. At my talk page he has put forth some half-assed rationale about record labels and timeframes, which he somehow expects other users to "know" in advance and even to disregard the content of the source. In his words, "The readers almost never care about the source, they just read it". Clearly his grasp of WP:RS is lacking, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
While this source seemed reasonable at first, the quality has been dropping down to blogish levels lately.
For example:
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140102000017&cid=1101 As the Zubr-class landing craft is three times larger than the patrol vessels with which the Japanese coast guard and most countries in Southeast Asia are equipped, it is nearly unstoppable, even when detected.
Note that nobody is credited for writing this piece, no publisher is noted, and no person is credited for having anything to do with the site.
I strongly suspect that "Kaowei Nee" of Selangor, Taiwan is a lone operator.
Should we purge all links to this site? Hcobb ( talk) 13:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Is NOW News reliable enough to be utilized for the claim that a BLP works for the CIA. See history at As'ad AbuKhalil. Thanks. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The Shooting of Trayvon Martin article discusses the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. A section of the article deals how the media portrayed Martin and Zimmerman as the case was being reported on. The sentence being challenged is
Martin's and Zimmerman's height and weight were the subject of contention in the media and blogs and used to inform speculation.
The source provided to support that statement is an interview of a friend of Zimmerman that was broadcast by a local television news program, in which Zimmerman's friend said: "That's a perfect example of all the misinformation that is out there. Based upon his 2005 arrest, a mug shot says he weights 250 pounds and that doesn't say he is 5 feet, 8 inches and 170 pounds . . . It's not his appearance it is the information and the accuracy of everything that we have heard from the very beginning characterizing him as white, his size his weight." A discussion on this and related matters has been underway here. Dezastru ( talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The site in question is a self-published "labor of love", "compiled by Brian Maher". (Maher, apparently, is a former Mummer.) At issue (currently) is a claim on Aqua String Band. Maher states Aqua missed three parades, but does not explain how he determined this. (Most likely, he reviewed newspaper reports from the three years in question, 1927-9, and did not see Aqua listed.) The band's website states, "The Band has never missed a New Year's Day Parade..." [46] Other bands in the parade also claim to have the longest uninterrupted string of marches.
IMO, reliable sources have not been provided to state that any particular band has or has not marched every year, uninterrupted. Various bands make the claim to be the oldest. One self-published source does not answer the question. As no reliable sources discuss it at all, we leave it out. - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The reliable source at hand, "The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record", has been used not only throughout the Mummers' community as the only reliable source of material for the history of the Philadelphia String Bands, it is also the source material used by live television commentators during the annual Philadelphia Mummers' Parade - String Band Division coverage. More notably, the "String Band Record" was used on current Wiki sites (most notably, Ferko String Band), and remained, without objection from anyone in the Wiki, String Band or Mummers' community, until Summer saw it, remembered about the Aqua page, and had it removed. Summer also stated that "The Philadelphia Mummers String Band Record" was a "self-published article". Wiki defines a "self-published source" as: " books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets." The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record isn't based on any of those. The opening paragraph clearly states that the source material was culled from thousands of pages from at times up to seventeen different Philadelphia newspapers, from 1901 to the present. This is all that "The Philadelphia Mummers String Band Record" is made up of. Summer also states (above) that the issue with the Aqua String Band missing three parades is not fully explained. Aqua String Band didn't march, because they did not exist during those years, they did not march those three years, they did not receive a parade permit for those three years, the City of Philadelphia did not hand over any prize money to a group called "Aqua String Band" for those three years (yes, the String Band Record is detailed enough to provide actual prize money won by the over 1,500 +/- String Bands that have marched from 1902-present). By the virtue of the Aqua String Band not being present in any coverage from the up to seventeen Philadelphia newspapers, and the City of Philadelphia not having distributed prize money to any group with "Aqua String Band" in their name, all the other String Bands being accounted for (so there were no name changes), and no parade permits issued by the City of Philadelphia for a group called "Aqua String Band" during 1927, 1928 and 1929, we have sufficent evidence, short of building a time machine, that the aforementioned band did NOT march. If Summer has evidence to the contrary, he has not shown it to me, or any other group involved in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade. Above, Summer claims that "various bands make the claim to be the oldest". I am not sure what he is making reference to, as I am unable to find such references, other than Aqua String Band's own website stating that they are "one of the oldest bands marching in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade". The oldest Philadelphia String Band currently marching is the Fralinger String Band. The oldest consecutively marching Philadelphia String Band (never missing a parade), is the Joseph A. Ferko String Band. StringBandDivisionThesis ( talk) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"One guy searched through old newspapers, made his own decisions about years with only unofficial parades, came to conclusions based on what he did not find and put his conclusions on his personal website." No, one guy didn't "make his own decisions" for his reliable-source document. History made those decisions. Up to seventeen different newspapers reported on history. These are facts. All of these facts, spanning over 110 years, are presented in this reliable-source document. It is these same sources that support the Joseph A. Ferko String Band as being the oldest continually-marching String Band. They also support the fact that the Aqua String Band has missed three parades, 1927, 1928 and 1929. Reliable facts within a reliable-source document. StringBandDivisionThesis ( talk) 19:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey there I'm new to all this, people have said i should make a page for myself. I have & its all true, but from here i don't understand how to get it verified ect... my names Tony Fulton & I play AFL in AU, user name Fultsfults. was just hoping i can get a page up like the other guys i play footy with, but it all seem very complicated! my dad can be a "ref" just dont know how to do it (I tried hours ago just by writing a few words) if you look at what i wrote. you could see that, no one can just make that up!
cheers
Tony Fulton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultsfults ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 January 2014
I'm looking at this as a source for local/regional Chinese technology-related information.
Mission: http://corp.sina.com.cn/eng/sina_prod_eng.htm (They plan to make money by inserting ads into a variety of media channels which they run ... As do aol, cnn, yahoo ...) "SINA’s portal network consists of four destination websites dedicated to the Chinese communities across the globe: Mainland China (www.sina.com.cn), Taiwan (www.sina.com.tw), Hong Kong (www.sina.com.hk), and overseas Chinese in North America (www.sina.com). "
English version : http://english.sina.com/index.html
and an example of local content, in Chinese : http://hebei.sina.com.cn/bd/focus/2013-09-27/08011242.html -- with a google-translate of the first paragraph :
Obviously a human-translation would be better, but the basic information is clear enough. Alanf777 ( talk) 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This is related to a discussion on Talk:Zwarte Piet. I contend that if the report is not vetted via a trial it is essentially a self-published, primary source and should not have any weight in a discussion. There are other editors who feel otherwise. I look to both the police report and testimony involved in the Robert Dziekański Taser incident as an example why police reports should not be used as RSes. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
YouTube as dominant Ref in BLP Marques Brownlee I could be wrong. But I do not believe any notable person needs to substantiate anything about themselves using a YouTube video that they posted. The article mention depends on YouTube videos posted by the very same person the page is about. One editor is saying they are allowed. I have searched and a. Not seen anyone notable using them as RS. 2. Not seen any documentation that a BLP can have YouTube links. I accept that if the statement is "He has a YouTube page" then obviously a link to that page makes sense. But beyond that...-- Inayity ( talk) 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
1.
Interview with Marques Brownlee!. As the title suggests this is an interview with Brownlee conducted by Martin Shervington, and posted to Shervington channel. This 30-minute interview unsurprisingly covers a lot of ground, and is used as a general source as they do confirm many basic points that article raises, and they also noted about Browlee that Vic Gundotra, Senior Vice President of Google Social, calls him the "best technology reviewer on the planet right now." This source, among others was removed and a "citation needed" flag was added in its place.
The source also confirms the statements; He currently is a marketing student at
Stevens Institute of Technology. He is majoring in
business and technology, while minoring in
Information systems, and
marketing. And Other than producing content and school, he plays golf, and is a former professional
ultimate frisbee player with the New Jersey Hammerheads. And His first several hundred videos were primarily hardware tutorials, and
freeware. And He was later approached by companies to demonstrate their paid software and hardware, but only reviews products that would be of interest to his audience of technology enthusiasts.
2. The statement "The channel is said to be one of the fastest growing channels and one of the most subscribed-to in the technology industry." was also removed, this too can be attributed to the first source and I will accept it was an error not to have it with a source. The same user who deleted several sources then added a "citation needed" flag, didn't flag this statement but just removed it.
3. Management team – Company – Google. Is the website of Google management confirming that Vic Gundotra is indeed who we say he is, the Senior Vice President of Google Social. This was the second of three sources removed and replaced with one "citation needed" flag.
4. Vic Gundotra - Google+ - New MKBHD Video is live! I spend a lot of time in thought…. Is Vic Gundotra's own post confirming that what we said he said is accurate and verifiable. This was the third of three sources removed and replaced with one "citation needed" flag.
5. Pocketnow VIP, episode 3: meet Marques Brownlee from MKBHD! | Pocketnow. This is another online interview with Browlee that confirms a lot of basic, non-exceptional information in the article. It was removed as a source for the statement: He is majoring in business and technology, while minoring in Information systems, and marketing.
6. G Flex Self Healing Demo. This is one of Browlee's hundreds of videos, and the only one that is presently mentioned in the article, about someone who is notable for making YouTube videos. It is a demo of a particular product and is used to source " As of Dec 2013, the video has over 3,032,947 views." This source was also removed and replaced by a "citation needed" flag.
All in all these are not questionable sources and I think they fairly support the claims they are referencing. I think it would be nice to have more sources but this is also a new article, a short article, and until these sources were removed, most of the exceptional statements were easily verifiable. I think it can all be restored and I don't see any BLP violations as has been suggested but maybe someone can make it more clear what they are. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 08:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I also just saw WP:YOUTUBE, and WP:VIDEOLINK. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll keep looking. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 09:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've recently reverted a negative BLP edit made to Stella Oduah-Ogiemwonyi that referred back to SaharaReporters.com as its source. Sahara Reporters describes itself as "an online community of international reporters and social advocates dedicated to bringing you commentaries, features, news reports from a Nigerian-African perspective" whose "core members are unapologetic practitioners of advocacy journalism", which makes it sound closer to a forum or blog. On the other hand, their description of their editorial policy is more promising: "Although most of our stories are sourced through ordinary citizens, we adhere to strict standards of verification in order to present authentic and evidence-based reports to our readers." The contradiction of the two ideas was enough to put me on the fence about the reliability of the source, and thus to make me revert pending discussion, but now that I have, I'd like to get more informed input about whether the source is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Main topic: Pantheism and Shintoism, Dispute:- Talk:Pantheism#Shinto Considering that there are many sources, regarding the known connection of Pantheism and Shinto. I want to know, if any of these sources are reliable, or legible, and should be used for pushing the information that Shintoism is pantheism.
Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyways, how many were reliable of these. Bladesmulti ( talk) 03:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
We are discussing either a passage like
needs a reference. While I think it does, a fellow editor argued that, since it can be checked on a PC with google maps, it does not.
I'm open to be enlightened about what's the common practice on such cases. Thanks, -- damiens.rf 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
(←)You did say above that you, too, wouldn't just "trust me over a published source". So no matter how we slice it, fact is when we don't know someone we throw AGF aside and we demand "OK, show me the 'money'". On the other hand, I never said we should not -ever- ask for a citation. In certain cases it's not needed ("the sky is blue"), in others it's mandatory ("The US has 317 million inhabitants"). I was simply observing that the majority of editors do not ask for a citation except under very specific certain circumstances. Case in point, you seem to be accusing me of a "complete inability to assume good faith" and yet you also stated "I would challenge [Dr. Gandara having a housing complex named after him] myself, since in my own experience on Wikipedia (nay, Earth) people will lie about anything for any reason", which gives evidence of your own lack of AGF. However, we don't need to reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements. The fact is that, in the end, we are all guilty of lacking AGF (even if we refuse to admit it) - but we lack AGF because there is reason: namely, our prior experiences about others lying, etc. So, no, policy issues (the question about whether or not a citation in the Dr. Gandara case should be deemed mandatory) cannot be dealt with in a void; there is always an element of personal perspective involved when someone's character is under question as you have shown above. Mercy11 ( talk) 04:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a new section added here and also here regarding a pyramid-building theory by Giulio Magli.
The whole thing seems sourced to this document, which looks academic on first blush, but then it looks like it's just the proposal, no obvious peer review., submitted by the author himself. Am I right to think that no academic process has actually taken place with this proposal?
And is this person a reliable source by himself for theories about building the pyramids? (The book he has written seems to be from an academic self-publisher.)
Is this article in The Huffington Post reliable for adding the statement that Janet Jackson is Muslim to the Janet Jackson and List of American Muslims articles? Nightscream ( talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"Rumours" about religion do not belong in any BLP IMO. Collect ( talk) 23:35, 10 January 2014 (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 155 | ← | Archive 160 | Archive 161 | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 |
The lead of Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan contained the following line:
The following two "sources" were given for this line:
Unfortunately, those two sources are almost exact copies of the Wikipedia-article. The Wikipedia-lead got changed to this specific text in 2007;
Behura's article is from 2010; the Study Guide is from 2012. So, these sources are not WP:RS, IMO. This has been discussed at Talk:Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan#Lead (continued). Comments are welcome. Joshua Jonathan - Let's talk! 07:30, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
The Shwebomin claimed to be a pretender of Burmese Throne. I have never heard of his existence before. His name is never mentioned in official genealogy nor in any Burmese history book. The source cited is an interview on a talk show, "Defining Movement". I have never heard of that show before. Could it be a good source for BLP? SWH® talk 16:48, 14 December 2013 (UTC)
Source : Guardian.co.uk blog http://www.theguardian.com/sport/2003/apr/18/athletics.comment
Article: Carl Lewis
Content:
but recognized by some experts as a combination of drugs used as masking agents for anabolic steroids
I am disputing with another editor ( User_talk:BearMan998) the use of a blog-like comment on the Guardian.co.uk to assess the truth of certain claims related to the field of medicine. First of all the guardian blog vaguely reports that
...tested positive for the same combination of drugs, which some experts believe can mask more serious drugs such as anabolic steroids
and that significantly differs from what is reported in the wikipedia article as in one case there is a supposition ("believe", "can") and in the other a proper assertion ("recognized", "used as"). Second and most important, the author of the blog in the Guardian reports quite a vague statement on the use of stimulants as masking agents. He doesn't cite who the experts are or any related work, or a case study that can lead to a verifiable scientific source. That said I can't find any evidence or hint among scientific publications or dissertations about such claims. Stimulants and masking agents are two distinct categories in doping medicine and it seems to me there is nowhere consensus or knowledge that certain stimulants or a combination of them can result into the effects of a masking agent for steroids. I asked the other editor if he can corroborate with other reliable sources what is claimed in the Guardian blog but didn't give me any hint. He asked me to provide a source that counterclaims that in the context of the Lewis Guardian blog, which seems to me not a sensible request as nobody in the world of science would in any case bother to disprove something that is not proven. He is willing to accept the statement of the blog, whose author has not a reputation in the field of medicine I guess, as a reliable source of scientific consensus/awareness over the relationship between stimulants and masking agents. To my experience vague statements like "someone believes that..." are unacceptable sources of truth and are not worth mention in an encyclopedia. Moreover in the field of science even blank suppositions without any specific motivation are worthless. Since the statement in the Guardian sounds like an isolated rumor rather than an objective verifiable fact I feel it shouldn't be reported on any page in the Wikipedia to support a certain thesis. What is your take? JJCasual 23:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is seriesnow.com considered reliable? It looks like IMDB, which I know has been judged to be unreliable. There doesn't seem to be any info at the website as to who owns it, who edits, or anything else to be used as a guide as to quality. Is used at Ricardo Chávez, and about 64 other articles [1]. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:56, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
Is Internet Broadway Database a WP:RS?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 00:24, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
In the article Ashok Sundari none of the sources being used seem reliable. They are proiding wrong information. These are the websites:
These sources say
The story of Ashoka Sundari is found in Padma Purana. She is born when Shiva and Parvati encounter the wish-fulfilling tree and Parvati asks for a daughter, who will give her company when she is alone in Kailash. The wish is instantly granted. She is called Ashoka as she got rid of Parvati’s shok or sorrow and Sundari because she is beautiful.
Ashoka Sundari was destined to marry Nahusha, grandson of Yayati of the lunar dynasty. There is reference to a demon who tries to abduct her but she escapes and curses the demon that he will be killed by her husband. Ashoka Sundari and Nahusha marry in the hermitage of Sage Vashisht.
Ashoka Sundari’s story also comes from the vrat-kathas of Gujarat.
However I cannot find anywhere that she is either mentioned in Padma Purana or any Vrat-kathas of Gujrat. Also they are also providing wrong information. They say that Ashok SUndari married Nahusha and he was the grandson of Yayati. However Nahusha actually maried Viraja, the daughter of Pitrs. Also Yaytai was son of Nahusha not his grandfather. This is mentioned in these sources which are scholary sources:
Also here is a short translation of Padma Purana which does mention Nahusha and Yayati as his son but does not mention any Ashok Sundari:
Mythological articles are scholary articles and only that information should be added which has scholarly consensus according to WP:RS. The sources used in the article Ashok Sundari are providing wrong information. Therefore, they are probably unreliable or their reliabilty cannot be established. This Ashok Sundari appeared in TV show Devon Ke Dev...Mahadev and from there probably some people got an idea she existed in real. Actually she is just a character in a play by Shambuprasad Dunghel. I can not find any scholary source which says that she exists in Hindu mythology and also there is no scholarly consensus on her at all. I think this article is more based on personal opinion rather than reliable sources. I would like to ask other users and administrators whether those sources used in this article Ashok Sundari are reliable at all and whether they should be removed. Thank you. MythoEditor ( talk) 09:00, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Is Ballotpedia a reliable source? I see it used both for election information and for general details about BLPs. Dougweller ( talk) 14:40, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.satp.org/satporgtp/countries/india/states/tripura/terrorist_outfits/NLFT.HTM
Seems reliable to me, but it has been pointed by one user to be unreliable, kindly have a look at the talk pages too, and recent edits. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:58, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
[3] from SATP is used as a source for the claims:
I can not find anything in that link remotely supporting any part of those claims.
[4] is used as a claim for a group being "Christian terrorists" while no such claim is made or inferred by the source at all. The source, in fact, quotes the JMB as calling themselves "soldiers of Allah" and that it seeks "to establish Islamic rule." I suggest that it is being misused as a source in "Christian terrorism."
[5] is used for the claim:
Where the source makes no such claim - it is simply the Indian statute.
[6] is used as a source for the claim:
That source refers to Christianity as being a reason for a split in a group -- not ascribing it as a primary focus of anything ("lavish lifestyles" outrank religion as a reason for the split per the source)
[7] is apparently a government press release run by the BBC ised to support:
Which is not found in this source.
[8] also appears to be a press release used for:
Amazingly enough, iterating a misused cite does not make the second use valid.
[9] is used for:
Problem is that the source makes no claim of "terrorism" at all, and it states In a statement, the NLFT said it wanted all tribespeople in Tripura to become Christians because the practice of Hinduism has led to them being marginalised by people of Bengali origin living in the state. This appears to be more of a religious issue than one of "Christian terrorism."
[10] Rediff is used for the claim:
Problem is that the article lead states
And also
When one uses a source, one well ought not misrepresent what the source says in order to promote single sentences mined from it. Cheers -- tired of going through all the misused, abused and non-reliable sources given here. Collect ( talk) 15:29, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
For now, unless I see third-party sources that verity the site's trustworthiness and neutrality (or even their fact checking) I personally will not accept this as a reliable source. Editors are urged to find the reliable sources in published media that verify facts in the article; after all, one would assume that the SATP likewise uses reliably sourced information to write up their articles. Drmies ( talk) 16:05, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
This does not solve the problem of the SATP site. If an article is signed, one could suppose it's more acceptable as a reliable source; I don't really see that. I don't accept such a portal/club unless their reliability is verified (like, for instance, in the case of the SPLC, even if that site can be argued to have a POV) and, barring such independent credentials, we should be very wary of accepting the conclusions drawn in their article, even of the primary facts it reports. After all (I think Itsmejudith said that too?), those facts ought to be found in other sources as well, English or not.
One more thing: Collect may not have been 100% spot-on in their assessment, but they were pretty good at it, and the larger point here is that we should edit carefully and conservatively in such contentious subjects: excision is to be preferred over careless and/or poorly references inclusion. That is my opinion as an administrator as well as an editor. Drmies ( talk) 17:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Collect writes " [14] is apparently a government press release run by the BBC ised(sic) to support:
In April 2000, the secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, Nagmanlal Halam, was arrested with a large quantity of explosives. He confessed to illegally buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for two years Which is not found in this source. First, I see no evidence to call this a press release run by the BBC. It looks to me like an interview (eg "Mr Sarkar told the BBC") by the BBC's East India correspondent. It says "Nagmanlal Halam, secretary of the Noapara Baptist Church in Tripura, was arrested late on Monday with a large quantity of explosives." and "The chief minister said that Mr Halam confessed to buying and supplying explosives to the NLFT for the past two years." Collect, why are you saying it is not found in this source? You could argue that we should attribute the last statement to the government minister, but that's not the same as saying it isn't in the source. Dougweller ( talk) 17:24, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
Are news sights as in wetpaint.com acceptable not like the fan based ones where anyone can write anything and not the tabloids that spread roumors but the reliable ones that use quotes and real live interviews that also cite their own sources they got their information from?
In addition, it's important to look and see if a site has editorial control, that articles are vetted and that it is independent of commercial and other interests that might interfere with their "reporting", if that's what it is. Now, Wetpaint, like most such sites, has an "About" section, at http://www.wetpaint-inc.com/about/. Read it--I just did, and I lost all confidence in that site's reliability. The only interest there is money: "Our test and measurement system delivers real-time audience insights on what they desire, coupled with targeted recommendations to program the right content, at the right time, for each target audience. These insights and recommendations are all driven by cutting-edge analytical methods applied to massive amounts of data ingested into our platform." A real news organization gives the people what is true and verified and important, not "what they want".
So this one, no. The next one? Look to see what they're trying to do and how they try to do it. I hope I'm not aiming too high. Drmies ( talk) 01:10, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
this edit,,,,,, small mortars and rockets
Mass media reported:
ITAR-TASS official text of the [1], [2], [3], [4]
and Russia-24 (TV channel) free copyright *Syrian diary* [5] *the battle for Syria* [6] official video documentary *Syrian diary* [7] official video documentary and the official text of the *the battle for Syria* [8] video documentary Russian, but with English subtitles: *Syrian diary* [9] *the battle for Syria* [10]
and Russia-1 (TV channel) free copyright *truth of the war* [11] official video documentary *truth of the war* [12]
and NTV (Russia) all of the shooting from the territory of the opposition, official video documentary *The territory of AK* [14] free copyright *The territory of AK* [15]: all this also claim (interview) commanders of the opposition (several different groups). In summary. Syrian opposition is fighting against Assad, and against *not Islamic* laws of religion. And against anything, not named (other troops Syrian opposition), but these groups are officially recognized by terrorists, but they do not give interviews and they are also part of the opposition.
sources ITAR-TASS Russia-24 (TV channel) [16] Russia-1 (TV channel) look. if you are against such a contribution (if you are against this editing). please. detailed answer why.
this edit removed, said - Undoing pov pushing and use of unreliable sources. I changed the edits. now there is no such problem? pov? unreliable sources - it is impossible. all sources is very authoritative media, they work *news*, worldwide, many years. if you do not have a source that ITAR-TASS's a lie (specifically those articles that I used), if you have no source (*battle for Syria* it's a lie). you can't delete my edits. it is outside the rules. in addition, I give the translation. I give references are free from copyright. in addition, the recording of TV ether (news release) this is the authoritative source. this is a verifiable source. moreover, *the battle for Syria* is a documentary film. other sources (if there are sources without translation tell me and I mend). but you can't simply delete all at once. my sources have become in Wikipedia. you can read about them that is large media (news). Rqasd ( talk) 15:11, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
The website
www
This was mentioned above but I want to start a separate thread on this. Cram101 is a publisher of e-text study guides, and should not be used as a source although it is used at the moment in several articles. [19]. This review by an academic of the study guide for his textbook points out that they are written by computer. In this case it failed to pick up vital points, defined (in a textbook on economics) 'monopoly' as a board game, and to avoid copyright violations picked up definitions from a number of websites, including Wikipedia. Another quote from the review, "here's how "attitude" is defined: "In heraldry, an attitude is the position in which an animal, fictional beast, mythical creature, human or human-like being is emblazoned as a charge, supporter or crest." Other sites call it a scam. Ripoff Report says [20] "You can look at any book on the site and cross-reference the Chapter 1 "notes" with Wikipedia. It's clear that some script just pulls keywords and then links the corresponding Wikipedia article. " Kill on sight. Dougweller ( talk) 12:46, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
Is this book [21], written by three authors two of which have PhDs, a reliable source for biographies that we already have on members of the Strode family? Camelbinky ( talk) 22:47, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
http://www.malmesbury.com/malmesbury-history/961-hannah-twynnoy.html categorizes the death of Hannah Twynnoy as "unusual". I can find no reliable sources that make that characterization, not even the indirect source used in the article, http://www.athelstanmuseum.org.uk/people_hannah_twynnoy.html. Can a community directory be considered a reliable source for categorizing deaths as "unusual" pursuant to them being included in List of unusual deaths?— Kww( talk) 02:36, 15 December 2013 (UTC)
It's worth observing, possibly, that some of this discussion seems predicated on the idea that list of unusual deaths has high sourcing standards and this site doesn't meet them. In fact, the list defines itself as unique or extremely rare circumstances of death recorded throughout history, noted as being unusual by multiple sources. But a lot (most?) of the entries have only one source, and a sampling suggests not all of these have any sources explicitly addressing unusualness. By the actual standards of the list (as opposed to the proclaimed standards), the site (Athelstan Museum [23], not malmesbury.com, which is just echoing it) is a perfectly adequate source for what is clearly an unusual event, if we characterise it as an example of the type "death by a dangerous species in a place where the species is not endemic". On a related note: the list would be a lot more digestible if some attempt at organisation was made, instead of just dumping entries which make the grade by some apparently fairly arbitrary standard into a chronological list. Categorisation by eg, location of death, deaths by cause of death, etc. Podiaebba ( talk) 01:56, 18 December 2013 (UTC)
I am looking for consensus whether the following source is considered reliable.
Freaky Frog Friday at Foxnews.com. The link is here. There are several comments in the article which oppose certain research findings and methodology of the subject Tyrone Hayes ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). The author of the source is publisher of a website, JunkScience.com. However this material is covered under news at Foxnews. An example of the material includes:
The most dubious part of Hayes' experiment is the claim that frogs exposed to the lower concentration of atrazine (0.1 ppb) actually had triple the rate of deformities of those exposed to the higher concentration (25 ppb). That violates a basic law of toxicology that the higher the dose the greater the rate and severity of toxic effects.
These comments are echoed by others too but this source seems strongest. Similar material is found in an op-ed at Forbes magazine online. JodyB talk 11:51, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
There is currently a mini-edit war at White Latin American about the figure used for the Colombia in the pop box. The original ref s;ays 17.5M and is Colombia: A Country Study 5th edition (2010) [24]. This is being changed to 11.2 from the same study's 1st edition (1990) [25]. A second ref for the lower figure was also added in the latest revert - an anonymous and undated Google doc titled "EL HABITAT Y EL SER HUMANOL: Etnográfica de Colombia" [26]
There has been some discussion on the article talk page [27] and on my personal talk page [28] which is getting nowhere and we are both approaching WP:3RR. It seems obvious to me, but just in case I'm wrong can somebody please confirm a) which edition of the Colombia study we should be using - 1990 or 2010 and b) if the Google doc is WP:RS in this instance.
Tobus ( talk) 08:17, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The article is
Dogecoin.
The sources being used are the following:
Other than links to non-reliable source cryptocurrency related websites (coin exchanges and whatnot, not news sites), these are the only sources for the article. Are any of these sources reliable enough to base an article on? The subject of the article has not received significant coverage in any mainstream news source, other than a
mention in a list of cryptocurrencies in a column in the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review.
atomicthumbs‽ (
talk) 00:59, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
I think we need to add six more sources to the boat of links. By this time, it's starting to catch on in other countries, so some of these are going to be in different languages, and may require translation.
Just adding to the workload, guys! [ citation needed] 12:34, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
[29] has been repeatedly added to this high profile biography.
The claim made is Lindbergh's outspoken isolationism led to surveillance and investigation by the FBI under J. Edgar Hoover. A Bureau report in June 1941 discredited Lindbergh with unsubstantiated statements that he associated with pimps and prostitutes and flew bootleg whisky from Canada to Montana. Jeffreys-Jones, Rhodri. "Cloak and Dollar: A History of American Secret Intelligence" Yale University Press (2003) p. 97
The source continues: 'Hoover knew how to increase and exploit the unpopularity of his targets in order to enhance the FBI's power and budget.
The query is - is this source properly used for the direct implication that Lindbergh did consort with "pimps, prostitutes and bootleggers" where the actual source makes clear that the allegations were unfounded and based on Hoover's misuse of power to help the FBI's power and budget? . IOW, ought unfounded allegations about a dead person be added to a biography where the source is not specifically about that person at all, but presents it as an example of poor investigations? I rather think the source, in fact, is more about the misuse of the FBI than about the sins of Lindbergh. Cheers.
Collect (
talk) 01:59, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd really like to use this in Earthless discography (it's the only source I can find that says anything about a split album I want to add to the article). Problem is, it's a Blogger website, and as far as I know, blogs in general (especially Blogger blogs) are not considered acceptable. Or is this to be determined on a case-by-case basis? Anyway, here's the link: http://psychedelicbaby.blogspot.com/2011/04/earthless-my-interview-with-isaiah.html Lazy Bastard Guy 19:03, 19 December 2013 (UTC)
Would someone please provide a third party opinion at Talk:United States#Quality of sources on corporate tax incidence as it pertains to the content change at [33] and proposed at Talk:United States#Tax incidence? Thanks in advance. EllenCT ( talk) 08:06, 18 December 2013 (UTC) Anyone? Hello? EllenCT ( talk) 02:01, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello there!
I am new to Wikipedia, and have started an article about a public person from my country. There is not a lot of (reliable) information on the internet, BUT I have a lot of newspaper artciles about this person.
The information in those articles is of great value, and I would like to wikify my entry using these sources.
A) What's the copyright policy for newspaper articles ranging from 1940-1970? B) If I can use those, how do I link them to the reference-part? Should I take pictures of said articles, upload them onto an image-board (e.g. imgur,...) and then link the source to the picture?
Thank you a lot for you help,
Ezekwail
Do CelebrityNetWorth.com and TheRichest.org/ TheRichest.com qualify as reliable sources?
Both sites carry disclaimers [34] [35] disclaiming reliability for their sites' information, and their articles don't contain any sources or explanations for their assertions. Trivialist ( talk) 16:56, 22 December 2013 (UTC)
Are the current sources sufficient to support the statement "Bloom worked as a financial economist"? The first is his profile as an MEP, which presumably he wrote himself. The page won't download for me. The second is a short BBC report that simply has "an economist". BLP; the material is not negative about the subject. Itsmejudith ( talk) 09:09, 21 December 2013 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right place for this, but I caught an IP adding links to BibleGateway.com to a few articles this afternoon. Doing a search it seems like it's used quite a bit for whatever reason. It just seems like one of those sites that harvests searches for ad revenue, should we really be encouraging its use? Thargor Orlando ( talk) 20:52, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
See [36] and Talk:British National Party#Far-right? Right-wing populism which had 2 sources that look RS has also been removed. Dougweller ( talk) 17:52, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
This is being used at List of aircraft carriers in service. I believe this is a blog.
Reliable... yes? no? Thank - theWOLFchild 07:40, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
I note that the following sites are used as sources for the history of the Coat of arms of the London Borough of Haringey. None of these sources are being used to cite a specific statement, however the content of the article appears to be broadly consistent with the content of these sources. -
In favor of these sources, even the wiki site does appear to have some kind of editorial policy. The blog is by a notable local politician who who may be an expert on the history of her borough. They all appear to be honest attempts to document local history, and there are no obvious contradictions between these sources. However they are all obviously self-published.
Question: In light of the above claims, can we make a case for considering the above sources to be reliable enough in this context? -- Salimfadhley ( talk) 12:04, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I know that a source does not need to be available on the web to be used as a reliable source; but if the source was only on the web, and the web page is now not locatable on the host website, is it still an acceptable source? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 24 December 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for the Webarchive link. (And yes, the UNDUE is a matter that will need to be addressed, but it has been an uphill battle to get the editors to understand and agree that WP:V and WP:OR and WP:RS apply - the sophistication necessary for them to understand and begin to apply WP:UNDUE is a battle for another day.) -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 00:51, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Dispute over whether the info box should date it to the 2nd c. BC, per 2ary sources, or to the 5th c. BC, per 1ary sources and The Hindu newspaper. — kwami ( talk) 04:45, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
I'm getting some seriously mixed signals when it comes to the site "Son of the Bronx". It's a site that details Nielsen ratings for a lot of cable shows. Strikes against it: it's a Blogspot, and its editor isn't /super notable. Tallies for it: the information is cited to Nielsen itself, its editor worked for TV Media Insights (also here), and from what cross-referencing I can do, it seems that the info checks out. It's being used on several pages to cite information, and I'd love to use it to cite the missing info for List of Adventure Time episodes that TV by the Numbers and the Futon Critic et al have not provided. Thanks!-- Gen. Quon (Talk) 15:20, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Have we, as a community, come to a consensus on whether About.com is a reliable source or not? – Quadell ( talk) 19:57, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
One user has opined that we should never use About.com as a source. If anyone disagrees, please speak up. – Quadell ( talk) 20:34, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Past discussions of about.com have been mixed, and (from my reading) seem to indicate that the result depends strongly on whether there is some other reason for viewing the author of an article there as an expert on the subject (much like WP:SPS). See Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 16#Huffington Post, Gawker and About.com, Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 22#About.com, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 27#About.com. (I looked these up for a discussion in Talk:Tartine that also involves reliability of an about.com source.) — David Eppstein ( talk) 17:58, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Thousands of articles are citing Our Campaigns which, while not strictly an open wiki per this page, seems unambiguously unreliable per WP:SPS. This has been brought up on here a couple of times before with little to no response. I don't know how one gets started or what the criteria are but I think a large-scale cleanup might be necessary? – Arms & Hearts ( talk) 11:06, 26 December 2013 (UTC)
In regards to Talk:Ancient Egyptian race controversy and related Talk:DNA history of Egypt and Talk:Population history of Egypt, There was an earlier discussion: /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_141#DNA_Tribes.2C_a_private_genetics_company.2C_being_used_as_a_source
The Rameses peer-reviewed study: http://www.bmj.com/content/345/bmj.e8268 The Rameses DNA Tribes running the data from the peer-reviewed study: http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2013-02-01.pdf The Amarna peer-reviewed study: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=185393 The Amarna DNA Tribes running the data from the peer-reviewed study: http://dnatribes.com/dnatribes-digest-2012-01-01.pdf
These studies are being used for this content:
" Recent DNA studies of Ancient Egyptian mummies of a New Kingdom dynasty have confirmed Sub-Saharan African origins for notable New Kingdom pharoahs from both the Rameses III (from 1186 B.C.) and Amarna (from 1353 B.C.) lineages: In December 2012, Zahi Hawass, the former Egyptian Minister of State for Antiquities Affairs and his research team released DNA studies of Rameses III (who historically is assumed to have usurped the throne and as such may not represent earlier lineages) and his son have found he carried the Sub-Saharan African Haplogroup E1b1a, and as a result clustered most closely with Africans from the African Great Lakes (335.1), Southern Africa (266.0) and Tropical West Africa (241.7) and not Europeans (1.4), Middle Easterners (14.3) or peoples from the Horn of Africa (114.0). [17]
Earlier studies from January 2012 of the Amarna mummies had reached similar conclusions with the average affiliations of the mummies found to be Southern African (326.94), Great Lakes African (323.76) and Tropical West African (83.74) and not Middle Eastern (6.92), European (5.21) or with peoples from the Horn of Africa (14.79). [18] As no other studies of other Ancient Egyptian mummies are available, the questions as to the genetic affiliations of other pharaohs and figures (such as Cleopatra VII, the last pharaoh of Egypt from 51 B.C. following the Greek Conquest of Egypt by Alexander the Great in 300 B.C.) is yet undetermined."
Regarding the use of DNA tribes as a source due to the fact that it is a private company. Is it fine to use as a supporting source to the two peer-reviewed studies it is based on? The idea is that DNA Tribes took the data from the two peer reviewed studies which are cited in Ancient Egyptian race controversy, DNA history of Egypt and Population history of Egypt and ran it through to create the genetic distance information. Is it then okay to add the DNA tribes article as an additional source? This is an issue that arises with most scientific studies because most individuals are not sophisticated enough to read and understand the tables themselves. Using a supplementary study is useful if no arguments have been made as to fraud in the running of the supplied data. Thoughts are welcome, especially in light of the historically sensitive nature of this topic. Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 10:16, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
It would be great to get some other voices from editors who were not involved in the previous discussion to get an unbiased perspective.
Andajara120000 (
talk) 12:25, 23 December 2013 (UTC) How does one bring in other editors? I am new to this--or do editors come in voluntarily once they are alerted to this page. Regards,
Andajara120000 (
talk) 12:26, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I believe what DNA Tribes did was run the data provided in the peer reviewed studies to determine genetic affiliations. As such the crux of the matter is the reliability of the running of the data. My opinion is unless there is some evidence of fraud in the use of the data in the peer reviewed studies that DNA Tribes should be treated as any other source. The special status that DNA Tribes is getting seems strange to me. DNA Tribes is just like any researcher evaluating the data provided and giving its viewpoint- just like an author of a book or article evaluates the data presented and provides their analysis. What exactly is the difference? That has not yet been articulated in this discussion. We have the two peer-reviewed genetic studies at hand, we have the two analyses by DNA Tribes based on those genetic studies---none of the editors have provided any sources as to why the analyses by DNA Tribes are suspect. Perhaps a note can be placed as to any concerns with the analysis, just like in DNA history of Egypt or Population history of Egypt there are disclaimers as to the R1b findings for King Tut (including that the genetic researchers may not have even used King Tut's remains) but the info still remains for the readers to evaluate. I don't think any such claims have been made in regards to DNA Tribes. That is my take but other voices are very welcome. Regards Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:31, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
What I found on Wikipedia:BIASED
Shortcut: WP:BIASED seems to support including DNA Tribes and placing a disclaimer and NOT deleting it altogether. Am I missing something?? "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are good sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
While a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. On the other hand, an opinion in a reliable source is still an opinion, rather than a fact. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking. Editors should also consider whether the bias makes it appropriate to use in-text attribution to the source, as in "According to the opinion columnist Maureen Dowd..." or "According to the opera critic Tom Sutcliffe..."
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:58, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
I think what had been argued earlier was that there might a financial bias of the source---is that still the argument? If so a disclaimer as to the financial bias should do the trick or am I missing something? Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 12:59, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
DNA Tribes has been used as a source in the following diverse Wikipedia articles:
Maghrebis Genetic history of indigenous peoples of the Americas Classification of indigenous peoples of the Americas Tunisia Asian people Regards, Andajara120000 ( talk) 13:20, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
As this issue keeps coming up I have struck through the edits of a sockpuppet, see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Johnjohnjames - as the sockmaster is not allowed to edit, edits by their socks can be reverted or struck through where appropriate. Doug Weller talk 12:27, 5 July 2019 (UTC)
[39] is being cited in a discussion at Talk:Pamela Geller as a reliable source for calling her "right wing" in Wikipedia's voice in a BLP. I think it possible that the publisher does not meet Wikipedia criteria for reliable sources, that the book is not peer-reviewed, that the source appears to be possibly less academic in value than has been asserted on the talk page, and that there are many statements in the book which might indicate it is of little value in making contentious claims about living people. What say ye all? Collect ( talk) 23:06, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Out of curiosity, how many editors involved in this discussion actually read this book? Or did you simply perform a some Google search and this was one of the results? A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 04:48, 28 December 2013 (UTC)
Do sources cited at gun control need to mention gun control? I just removed a cited (highly biased) source which never mentions gun control. [40]
My edit was reverted by North8000 with the edit summary: Undid revision Goethean (talk) Undid removal of reference. The reference is supporting the material which cited, your claim that it it must include other terminology has no basis [42] Rummel is being cited in order to support material about Nazism in the gun control article, despite the fact that no reputable historian has been cited who contends that Nazism is a significant part of the topic of gun control, and despite the fact that some of the sources don't even mention gun control. — goethean 17:13, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
Hello, this is my first time here, my query is about a reference used in the article about the singer-songwriter Tina Arena. I'm trying to establish if The Richest website data ( http://www.therichest.com) is regarded as reliable.
On 26 December 2013, an editor used this site as a source for a statement in the lead section, that
Tina Arena has an estimated net worth of $245 million
A recent Australian Rich List of entertainers, including singers ( BRW Rich 50) doesn't list her at all, although that may be because she lives in France these days. She does not appear on the BRW Australian Rich 200 ( BRW Rich 200). Both those lists are very well regarded and regularly quoted by all mainstream Australian media outlets.I cannot be definitive, but I do not recall seeing her name on other Australian rich lists either (I am Australian) and an amount of $245 million would qualify her to top such lists.
I believe she has sold around eight million records ( The Artist’s Story:Tina Arena) and is a busy live performer but the amount (subjectively) seems very high, therefore I am wondering if The Richest website is reliable (I'm not saying it isn't, but I have not heard of it before). Any comments appreciated. Thanks. Melbourne3163 ( talk) 21:07, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Many thanks for your speedy responses. I have now read the discussion you highlighted and both your comments. This is most helpful and I have removed the unreliable reference (put there in good faith by another editor). Cheers. Melbourne3163 ( talk) 23:42, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
Hi, Could I have some opinions on whether this report would be considered a reliable source? Someone has used it as a source, and it looks more like pr talking points to me. http://www.cps.org.uk/files/reports/original/131202135150-WhyEverySeriousEnvironmentalistShouldFavourFracking.pdf It would never make it through peer review - or on WP - because the sources in it often don't support the statements, and many are outdated, but those issues are not related to my question - My question is whether this report would be considered a reliable source. Thanks, Smm201`0 ( talk) 18:43, 23 December 2013 (UTC)
Public-health benefits of hydraulic fracturing
Richard A. Muller, Professor of Physics at the University of California, Berkeley, senior scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory and a Principal of the China Shale Fund, an organization whose purpose is "to prove that shale gas can indeed be profitable and viable in China," [19] argues that the public health benefits from shale gas made available by fracking, by displacing harmful air pollution from coal, far outweigh their combined environmental costs. In a 2013 report for the Centre for Policy Studies, Muller writes that air pollution, mostly from coal burning, kills over three million people each year, primarily in the developing world. [20]
I submit that this source is reliable in supporting our use of this opinion of a distinguished scientist, on a topic within his interests and expertise. Others at the Talk page discussion agreed, and Smm201`0 is close to a WP:SPA on this general topic. He appears to be opposed to "fracking." -- Pete Tillman ( talk) 01:49, 29 December 2013 (UTC)
I'd appreciate if uninvolved editors cast an eye over this talk page discussion. The way I see it is that any number of people can be wrong. 1000 sources saying the same thing, mistakenly, does not make it true. And if 1000 other people claim that something is not true, then neither camp should be considered reliable. Ordinarily we would just apply WP:NPOV, but in this case I think it might be better to simply treat both camps as superfluous. Sorry for being so vague, but it would be quicker for you to simply read the discussion than for me to try and summarize things here. Thank you in advance. nagualdesign ( talk) 00:13, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you everybody for your comments and links. Much appreciated. Kind regards, nagualdesign ( talk) 03:12, 31 December 2013 (UTC)
Thank you, Blueboar. That was precisely the point I was trying to make. And special thanks to Mangoe for going to the article in question and getting stuck in. Case closed, and Happy New Year! nagualdesign ( talk) 03:25, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
My two cents: as a general rule, Wikipedia should be based on reliable (read: not infallible) sources, but it also shouldn't contradict itself. If two RSes contradict each other, we should be citing each as an opinion, unless it can be established that one of the RSes is probably wrong (say, all but one RS say one thing, and that one says the opposite). In the latter case, consensus should be easily attainable to remove the statement that is only backed up by a reliable source that just happens to be wrong. 182.249.240.38 ( talk) 08:56, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikipedia is being spammed with this (new) site. Is it a reliable source? Should the site be removed as a source? Should it be listed at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist? I thought posting here would be a good first step. Please advise.
Spammers:
A little digging shows that this user has a clear conflict of interest:
This user's name is from Delnex Media Private Limited who launched Fundoofun.com:
See also: Wikipedia article Fundoofun.com
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:35, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Can someone look at this? The source is a lecture by Hideo Levy and uploaded by Stanford University's official YouTube account. 182.249.240.18 ( talk) 04:47, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age Martha C. Nussbaum Harvard University Press p 195. is proffered as a source for asserting in Wikipedia's voice that Pamela Geller is "right wing." Is it properly used therefore? [43]
The book is specifically about religion and intolerance, primarily Christian and Muslim issues, and is not about politics in general, nor about the political spectrum at all, and the single use of "right wing" for Geller is as an adjective on one single page. The book also refers to such topics as Muslim circumcision where it states as a fact that it is not different from US male circumcision (page 53) and on page 125 that female genital mutilation of minors should only be barred if it "impairs sexual pleasure or other bodily functions." The author clearly states her positions in the first person "it seems to me" and thus at most the "right wing" comment made in a first person narrative and not in a study of the political spectrum is, at most, first person opinion, and, at worst, an example of googlemining for a book, any book, using "right wing" and "Pamela Geller" in the book. My own position is that opinions (and a book written in the first person is "opinion") must e'er be cited and ascribed as opinion. (review: Nussbaum is one of America's leading liberal thinkers. In The New Religious Intolerance, she turns her attention to the rise of antireligious—and specifically anti-Muslim—zealotry since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001. (Damon Linker New York Times Book Review 2012-07-22)) Cheers. Collect ( talk) 15:13, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated to the discussion of THIS proposed source
|
---|
|
This source is reliable for use within the purview of its subject matter (religion), but not within the context of the use being proposed (politics). Context is a controlling factor here per WP:CONTEXTMATTERS ("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 in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.") It seems that someone is reaching for a source outside the realm of politics because none could be found otherwise. Roccodrift ( talk) 16:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
This sources is reliable for the description of Geller as "right-wing". Please refrain from carrying on the debate here. Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:14, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Ten, don't sweat it; that's just a straw man. I'm all for the New York Times and Village Voice being used, although I'm not in favor of the latter being abused to confuse libertarianism with liberalism. MilesMoney ( talk) 18:22, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
At the article for Taking Over, an album by the band Overkill, User:Paranoid90 keeps adding a source which he insists is adequate proof of the album having sold a certain amount of copies. Currently, his addition to the article reads:
"As of 2011, Taking Over had sold over 100,000 copies in the U.S."
However, a simple browser search reveals no mention whatsoever of Taking Over within the source provided. A very fleeting mention of album sales is made at some point by the interviewee, who is a bandmember:
"How I could have sold over 100,000 units on Atlantic records and not received one penny!"
... but in context, these 100,000 units do not explicitly correspond to Taking Over. How could it, when the album itself is not even mentioned in any shape or form? Therefore I maintain that the source is NOT reliable in confirming such a definitive statement regarding album sales figures, and that I am correct in removing it. Nonetheless, User:Paranoid90 chooses to edit war over it rather than find a more reliable source. At my talk page he has put forth some half-assed rationale about record labels and timeframes, which he somehow expects other users to "know" in advance and even to disregard the content of the source. In his words, "The readers almost never care about the source, they just read it". Clearly his grasp of WP:RS is lacking, as well as WP:OR and WP:SYNTH. Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:02, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
While this source seemed reasonable at first, the quality has been dropping down to blogish levels lately.
For example:
http://www.wantchinatimes.com/news-subclass-cnt.aspx?id=20140102000017&cid=1101 As the Zubr-class landing craft is three times larger than the patrol vessels with which the Japanese coast guard and most countries in Southeast Asia are equipped, it is nearly unstoppable, even when detected.
Note that nobody is credited for writing this piece, no publisher is noted, and no person is credited for having anything to do with the site.
I strongly suspect that "Kaowei Nee" of Selangor, Taiwan is a lone operator.
Should we purge all links to this site? Hcobb ( talk) 13:29, 2 January 2014 (UTC)
Is NOW News reliable enough to be utilized for the claim that a BLP works for the CIA. See history at As'ad AbuKhalil. Thanks. -- brew crewer (yada, yada) 19:11, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
The Shooting of Trayvon Martin article discusses the fatal shooting of Trayvon Martin by George Zimmerman. A section of the article deals how the media portrayed Martin and Zimmerman as the case was being reported on. The sentence being challenged is
Martin's and Zimmerman's height and weight were the subject of contention in the media and blogs and used to inform speculation.
The source provided to support that statement is an interview of a friend of Zimmerman that was broadcast by a local television news program, in which Zimmerman's friend said: "That's a perfect example of all the misinformation that is out there. Based upon his 2005 arrest, a mug shot says he weights 250 pounds and that doesn't say he is 5 feet, 8 inches and 170 pounds . . . It's not his appearance it is the information and the accuracy of everything that we have heard from the very beginning characterizing him as white, his size his weight." A discussion on this and related matters has been underway here. Dezastru ( talk) 22:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The site in question is a self-published "labor of love", "compiled by Brian Maher". (Maher, apparently, is a former Mummer.) At issue (currently) is a claim on Aqua String Band. Maher states Aqua missed three parades, but does not explain how he determined this. (Most likely, he reviewed newspaper reports from the three years in question, 1927-9, and did not see Aqua listed.) The band's website states, "The Band has never missed a New Year's Day Parade..." [46] Other bands in the parade also claim to have the longest uninterrupted string of marches.
IMO, reliable sources have not been provided to state that any particular band has or has not marched every year, uninterrupted. Various bands make the claim to be the oldest. One self-published source does not answer the question. As no reliable sources discuss it at all, we leave it out. - SummerPhD ( talk) 16:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
The reliable source at hand, "The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record", has been used not only throughout the Mummers' community as the only reliable source of material for the history of the Philadelphia String Bands, it is also the source material used by live television commentators during the annual Philadelphia Mummers' Parade - String Band Division coverage. More notably, the "String Band Record" was used on current Wiki sites (most notably, Ferko String Band), and remained, without objection from anyone in the Wiki, String Band or Mummers' community, until Summer saw it, remembered about the Aqua page, and had it removed. Summer also stated that "The Philadelphia Mummers String Band Record" was a "self-published article". Wiki defines a "self-published source" as: " books, patents, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, personal or group blogs, Internet forum postings, and tweets." The Philadelphia Mummers' String Band Record isn't based on any of those. The opening paragraph clearly states that the source material was culled from thousands of pages from at times up to seventeen different Philadelphia newspapers, from 1901 to the present. This is all that "The Philadelphia Mummers String Band Record" is made up of. Summer also states (above) that the issue with the Aqua String Band missing three parades is not fully explained. Aqua String Band didn't march, because they did not exist during those years, they did not march those three years, they did not receive a parade permit for those three years, the City of Philadelphia did not hand over any prize money to a group called "Aqua String Band" for those three years (yes, the String Band Record is detailed enough to provide actual prize money won by the over 1,500 +/- String Bands that have marched from 1902-present). By the virtue of the Aqua String Band not being present in any coverage from the up to seventeen Philadelphia newspapers, and the City of Philadelphia not having distributed prize money to any group with "Aqua String Band" in their name, all the other String Bands being accounted for (so there were no name changes), and no parade permits issued by the City of Philadelphia for a group called "Aqua String Band" during 1927, 1928 and 1929, we have sufficent evidence, short of building a time machine, that the aforementioned band did NOT march. If Summer has evidence to the contrary, he has not shown it to me, or any other group involved in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade. Above, Summer claims that "various bands make the claim to be the oldest". I am not sure what he is making reference to, as I am unable to find such references, other than Aqua String Band's own website stating that they are "one of the oldest bands marching in the Philadelphia Mummers' Parade". The oldest Philadelphia String Band currently marching is the Fralinger String Band. The oldest consecutively marching Philadelphia String Band (never missing a parade), is the Joseph A. Ferko String Band. StringBandDivisionThesis ( talk) 17:00, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
"One guy searched through old newspapers, made his own decisions about years with only unofficial parades, came to conclusions based on what he did not find and put his conclusions on his personal website." No, one guy didn't "make his own decisions" for his reliable-source document. History made those decisions. Up to seventeen different newspapers reported on history. These are facts. All of these facts, spanning over 110 years, are presented in this reliable-source document. It is these same sources that support the Joseph A. Ferko String Band as being the oldest continually-marching String Band. They also support the fact that the Aqua String Band has missed three parades, 1927, 1928 and 1929. Reliable facts within a reliable-source document. StringBandDivisionThesis ( talk) 19:18, 3 January 2014 (UTC)
Hey there I'm new to all this, people have said i should make a page for myself. I have & its all true, but from here i don't understand how to get it verified ect... my names Tony Fulton & I play AFL in AU, user name Fultsfults. was just hoping i can get a page up like the other guys i play footy with, but it all seem very complicated! my dad can be a "ref" just dont know how to do it (I tried hours ago just by writing a few words) if you look at what i wrote. you could see that, no one can just make that up!
cheers
Tony Fulton — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fultsfults ( talk • contribs) 19:39, 4 January 2014
I'm looking at this as a source for local/regional Chinese technology-related information.
Mission: http://corp.sina.com.cn/eng/sina_prod_eng.htm (They plan to make money by inserting ads into a variety of media channels which they run ... As do aol, cnn, yahoo ...) "SINA’s portal network consists of four destination websites dedicated to the Chinese communities across the globe: Mainland China (www.sina.com.cn), Taiwan (www.sina.com.tw), Hong Kong (www.sina.com.hk), and overseas Chinese in North America (www.sina.com). "
English version : http://english.sina.com/index.html
and an example of local content, in Chinese : http://hebei.sina.com.cn/bd/focus/2013-09-27/08011242.html -- with a google-translate of the first paragraph :
Obviously a human-translation would be better, but the basic information is clear enough. Alanf777 ( talk) 23:25, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
This is related to a discussion on Talk:Zwarte Piet. I contend that if the report is not vetted via a trial it is essentially a self-published, primary source and should not have any weight in a discussion. There are other editors who feel otherwise. I look to both the police report and testimony involved in the Robert Dziekański Taser incident as an example why police reports should not be used as RSes. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:06, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
YouTube as dominant Ref in BLP Marques Brownlee I could be wrong. But I do not believe any notable person needs to substantiate anything about themselves using a YouTube video that they posted. The article mention depends on YouTube videos posted by the very same person the page is about. One editor is saying they are allowed. I have searched and a. Not seen anyone notable using them as RS. 2. Not seen any documentation that a BLP can have YouTube links. I accept that if the statement is "He has a YouTube page" then obviously a link to that page makes sense. But beyond that...-- Inayity ( talk) 08:25, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
1.
Interview with Marques Brownlee!. As the title suggests this is an interview with Brownlee conducted by Martin Shervington, and posted to Shervington channel. This 30-minute interview unsurprisingly covers a lot of ground, and is used as a general source as they do confirm many basic points that article raises, and they also noted about Browlee that Vic Gundotra, Senior Vice President of Google Social, calls him the "best technology reviewer on the planet right now." This source, among others was removed and a "citation needed" flag was added in its place.
The source also confirms the statements; He currently is a marketing student at
Stevens Institute of Technology. He is majoring in
business and technology, while minoring in
Information systems, and
marketing. And Other than producing content and school, he plays golf, and is a former professional
ultimate frisbee player with the New Jersey Hammerheads. And His first several hundred videos were primarily hardware tutorials, and
freeware. And He was later approached by companies to demonstrate their paid software and hardware, but only reviews products that would be of interest to his audience of technology enthusiasts.
2. The statement "The channel is said to be one of the fastest growing channels and one of the most subscribed-to in the technology industry." was also removed, this too can be attributed to the first source and I will accept it was an error not to have it with a source. The same user who deleted several sources then added a "citation needed" flag, didn't flag this statement but just removed it.
3. Management team – Company – Google. Is the website of Google management confirming that Vic Gundotra is indeed who we say he is, the Senior Vice President of Google Social. This was the second of three sources removed and replaced with one "citation needed" flag.
4. Vic Gundotra - Google+ - New MKBHD Video is live! I spend a lot of time in thought…. Is Vic Gundotra's own post confirming that what we said he said is accurate and verifiable. This was the third of three sources removed and replaced with one "citation needed" flag.
5. Pocketnow VIP, episode 3: meet Marques Brownlee from MKBHD! | Pocketnow. This is another online interview with Browlee that confirms a lot of basic, non-exceptional information in the article. It was removed as a source for the statement: He is majoring in business and technology, while minoring in Information systems, and marketing.
6. G Flex Self Healing Demo. This is one of Browlee's hundreds of videos, and the only one that is presently mentioned in the article, about someone who is notable for making YouTube videos. It is a demo of a particular product and is used to source " As of Dec 2013, the video has over 3,032,947 views." This source was also removed and replaced by a "citation needed" flag.
All in all these are not questionable sources and I think they fairly support the claims they are referencing. I think it would be nice to have more sources but this is also a new article, a short article, and until these sources were removed, most of the exceptional statements were easily verifiable. I think it can all be restored and I don't see any BLP violations as has been suggested but maybe someone can make it more clear what they are. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 08:43, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I also just saw WP:YOUTUBE, and WP:VIDEOLINK. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 08:45, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I'll keep looking. Sportfan5000 ( talk) 09:29, 9 January 2014 (UTC)
I've recently reverted a negative BLP edit made to Stella Oduah-Ogiemwonyi that referred back to SaharaReporters.com as its source. Sahara Reporters describes itself as "an online community of international reporters and social advocates dedicated to bringing you commentaries, features, news reports from a Nigerian-African perspective" whose "core members are unapologetic practitioners of advocacy journalism", which makes it sound closer to a forum or blog. On the other hand, their description of their editorial policy is more promising: "Although most of our stories are sourced through ordinary citizens, we adhere to strict standards of verification in order to present authentic and evidence-based reports to our readers." The contradiction of the two ideas was enough to put me on the fence about the reliability of the source, and thus to make me revert pending discussion, but now that I have, I'd like to get more informed input about whether the source is reliable for Wikipedia's purposes. A fluffernutter is a sandwich! ( talk) 15:46, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
Main topic: Pantheism and Shintoism, Dispute:- Talk:Pantheism#Shinto Considering that there are many sources, regarding the known connection of Pantheism and Shinto. I want to know, if any of these sources are reliable, or legible, and should be used for pushing the information that Shintoism is pantheism.
Bladesmulti ( talk) 16:05, 1 January 2014 (UTC)
Anyways, how many were reliable of these. Bladesmulti ( talk) 03:31, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
We are discussing either a passage like
needs a reference. While I think it does, a fellow editor argued that, since it can be checked on a PC with google maps, it does not.
I'm open to be enlightened about what's the common practice on such cases. Thanks, -- damiens.rf 16:20, 8 January 2014 (UTC)
(←)You did say above that you, too, wouldn't just "trust me over a published source". So no matter how we slice it, fact is when we don't know someone we throw AGF aside and we demand "OK, show me the 'money'". On the other hand, I never said we should not -ever- ask for a citation. In certain cases it's not needed ("the sky is blue"), in others it's mandatory ("The US has 317 million inhabitants"). I was simply observing that the majority of editors do not ask for a citation except under very specific certain circumstances. Case in point, you seem to be accusing me of a "complete inability to assume good faith" and yet you also stated "I would challenge [Dr. Gandara having a housing complex named after him] myself, since in my own experience on Wikipedia (nay, Earth) people will lie about anything for any reason", which gives evidence of your own lack of AGF. However, we don't need to reconcile those two seemingly contradictory statements. The fact is that, in the end, we are all guilty of lacking AGF (even if we refuse to admit it) - but we lack AGF because there is reason: namely, our prior experiences about others lying, etc. So, no, policy issues (the question about whether or not a citation in the Dr. Gandara case should be deemed mandatory) cannot be dealt with in a void; there is always an element of personal perspective involved when someone's character is under question as you have shown above. Mercy11 ( talk) 04:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a new section added here and also here regarding a pyramid-building theory by Giulio Magli.
The whole thing seems sourced to this document, which looks academic on first blush, but then it looks like it's just the proposal, no obvious peer review., submitted by the author himself. Am I right to think that no academic process has actually taken place with this proposal?
And is this person a reliable source by himself for theories about building the pyramids? (The book he has written seems to be from an academic self-publisher.)
Is this article in The Huffington Post reliable for adding the statement that Janet Jackson is Muslim to the Janet Jackson and List of American Muslims articles? Nightscream ( talk) 22:58, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
"Rumours" about religion do not belong in any BLP IMO. Collect ( talk) 23:35, 10 January 2014 (UTC)