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 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 170 |
The main dispute is on Persecution of Hindus, where a user claims that "historians dispute it" while citing a single writer(not historian) named Simon Digby, and that he who disputed the "80 million" figure. So he should be added. While this figure remains largely accepted by number of historians.
And he keeps edit warring about it, without providing any secondary source that refer to his "dispute". Considering that here, Digby dispute(comment at most) is being used as secondary, so he must be recognized by other reliable source, before it is being recognized here? Bladesmulti ( talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
But i somewhat agree with:-
Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right? Bladesmulti ( talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Digby is questioning the figures and methods of Lal in a peer reviewed journal, and it is notable enough to mention his critique of Lal's methods since he's a British Scholar (and not a mere "writer" - last time I checked only scholars got their pieces published in academic journals). Given that you've stated before numerous times that "Digby does not exist" and that it is a "fabricated source" what you seem to be implying is that Digby warrants no mention and is unworthy of inclusion. You are trying to represent that as a world view, "80 million Hindus died" when Lal doesn't even claim that. Digby's critique is in a peer reviewed journal. The usual nutty sources seem to take Lal's words out of context (Koenrad isn't even reliable since he's right wing, and represents a biased viewpoint). I suspect that you're one of those Hindu fanatics who can't seem to able to distinguish fact from fiction given how hard you're trying to negate Digby's position (witness: " [is it] appropriate to even mention Digby or not(since he is not mentioned by any other sources for this so called "dispute""). StuffandTruth ( talk) 18:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Depends upon the author. It is no more a point whether he is historian or Not. Bigger point is whether he dispute the figure, and even more that if they are related to the hindu population. Bladesmulti ( talk) 19:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite a lot to read :) I will just give my answer to Bladesmulti's question, far above, "Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right?" This is a good question: if Lal is talking generally about "decline in population", is that relevant to Persecution of Hindus? My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it may be sufficiently relevant as background material to be mentioned in the body of the article. If Lal is right, something in the period of Muslim domination was seriously bad for the wellbeing of the general population of India (the majority of whom were Hindus). To what extent that decline was linked to persecution, it would then be for other sources to say.
I repeat that that's just an opinion. If the consensus of those writing the article was that this material isn't relevant after all, I wouldn't argue. Andrew Dalby 14:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
1. Source – An article by professional writer Asher Schechter, published in the notable, Hebrew-language TheMarker, translated by three online services:
2. Wikipedia Article: Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Critical_response
3. Content: For a year and a half, this Wikipedia article has referenced the Schecter article above. When I came to our article this month, the Schechter article was summarized as:
TheMarker characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by The Irish Times [which also appears within the same Wikipedia, a few paragraphs above]
This negative viewpoint seemed amiss, considering the title of Schecter's article and the reiteration of content appearing previously in our article. After reviewing the translations, I removed the direct quotations (not a good idea for translations), and I adjusted our summary to be more reflective of the source's overall opinion, as evidenced by what commonalities the three translations share:
Writing for TheMarker, Asher Schechter praised the film's viral popularity and foreshadowing to the Occupy movement, while admitting its evidence to be poor. Schechter excused its deficiencies in light of the movie originally being created as an art film, and he called its reach as an activist effort a success.
My rewrite attempts were deleted repeatedly, and I'm concerned this was done not for a question of verifiability, but rather for an editor's bias against the movie. I'm posting here following a suggestion on our article's talk-page from a third party (who preferred not to give weight to either side). I'm hoping to get additional, neutral opinions on referencing Schechter's general opinion of the movie within our article based on the commonalities in the three machine-translations above. Thank you, startswithj ( talk) 23:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a dispute [5] over whether statements from an Associated Press (AP) article are reliable for a section of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article that discusses media portrayals of Martin in the aftermath of the shooting. The AP article, "Old Photos May Have Shaped Public Reaction In Trayvon Martin Case", states as fact that an undated photograph of Martin was several years out of date at the time of the shooting, and incorporates quotes from journalism experts commenting on that premise, such as:
Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate. Yet they may have helped shape initial perceptions of the deadly shooting.
"When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," said Kenny Irby, who teaches visual journalism at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla.
An editor feels that because the AP article was published by a large number of news outlets, it should be regarded as a reliable source on which to base the Wikipedia article section. However, Martin's family have said that the photo had been taken only 6 months before the shooting, which occurred when he was 17. (Incidentally, although the point has not been a part of the editors' discussion, the AP article also states that a photo the media used to depict Zimmerman, who had shot Martin, shows Zimmerman wearing a jail uniform with an orange collar, but subsequent reporting [6] suggests that that photo actually showed Zimmerman in an orange polo shirt, not a jail uniform.)
The text in the Wikipedia article under discussion is:
Portrayals of Martin and Zimmerman The contrast in the photos of Martin and of Zimmerman which were most widely used in early media reports of the shooting may have influenced initial public perceptions of the case.[340][341] The most commonly published image of Martin, provided to media by his family,[342] showed a smiling baby-faced teen.[340][Note 13] The only image of Zimmerman initially available to news media was a 7-year-old police booking photograph released by law enforcement officials after the shooting.[341] The image showed a heavy-set Zimmerman who appeared to be unhappy or angry,[341] with an imposing stare.[340] The AP quoted academic Kenny Irby on the expected effect, "When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," and another academic, Betsi Grabe, as saying that journalists will present stories as a struggle between good and evil "[i]f the ingredients are there."[340]
(citation #340 is the AP article)
There is a disagreement among editors over several questions related to this AP article:
(a) Should a section of the Wikipedia article that discusses media portrayals of Martin in the aftermath of the shooting be based on this AP article?
(b) Should quotations in the article from the journalism experts be included in the Wikipedia article section as above?
(c) Is the AP article's reliability on the issue of the photo's age so high that the mention of the disagreement should be placed in a footnote?
Dezastru (
talk) 21:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear source experts: An article ( David Reddish) that I was looking at (rather dubiously) had a source entry which led to the above web site. The source was supposed to be a book review. When I clicked on it, the web page asked me to install software to see the review. I didn't want to do that. Has anyone heard of this web site, and if so is it a repository of book reviews? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There are legitimate reasons to dispense chemical in this manner: crop dusting ... cloud seeding ... firefighting ... and smoke trails in air shows ... The chemtrails that have caused great concern are none of these ...
This book reads very sloppy, and it contains sensationalistic sentences that are not substantiated later.
He contradicts himself, first he says that sulphur dioxide was used in contrails, then says that some scientists proposed using it. He also makes scary comments about how this substance causes acid rain (note the use of "causes" instead of "would cause")
He also says that a certain laboratory "began shooting huge amounts of porous-walled glass microspheres into the stratosphere." but it only proposed doing so in one paper [7]. It's obvious he didn't check any of the original sources.
Note the negative reviews:
This source doesn't look reliable at all. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thinking to use it as reference for Rajshahi District. It will be fine? Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Bringing this here now because this has come up repeatedly at Robert P. Murphy as not RS for BLP. It was discussed at Talk:Robert_P._Murphy#Krugman:Misunderstanding_of_WP:BLOGS and at a WP:BLPN where no involved editors responded. However, it was removed and seemed settled as DeLong's blog not being RS, especially since better sources came up in the WP:BLPN discussion. A few hours after I got around to adding those better sources to the talk page discussion and inferred intention to properly rewrite the section, an involved editor put back the rejected info at this diff.
In short Paul Krugman has mentioned Murphy explicitly a couple times in his NY Times blog (
January 19, 2011 and
December 31, 2012). However, the added
Krugman blog entry does not mention Murphy and says: Brad DeLong vents his spleen on one example, a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same. There are then two is a long descriptions of DeLong's criticism of Murphy from two different DeLong blog entries. (
See diff.) Seems like tortuous synthesis using a questionable source to me.
Carolmooredc (
Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no WP:RS issue here. There's simply no such issue with this content or the sources. Wrong place for any concerns about this. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that the policy on using the blog on a BLP as quoted above rules out the use of DeLong's blog, but not Krugman's commentary on DeLong's criticism of Murphy. I think this makes for a gap in the sourcing policy in relation to people such as Murphy that are of marginal notability in academia but promoted by advocacy affiliated publications--in this case, Libertarian, Miseian.
The problem is that outside of the context of Krugman's NYT blog, there is not going to be any response from prominent authorities in the field because that just serves to add credibility to the dubious "predictions" and the like being advocated. And that means it is harder for Wikipedians to convey the actual state of affairs to the reader in such cases.
I see that user
Itsmejudith has voiced support for its reliability, which I am in favor of, so maybe this is a case where
WP:IAR can be invoked. DeLong mentions "ideological beliefs" in that short post, which seems to be most relevant. --
Ubikwit
連絡
見学/迷惑 19:11, 19:18 24 January 2014 (UTC)
RS version of Krugman views. At this diff I put in material from the two Krugman blog entries which actually mention Murphy by name. I only link to Murphy's replies at this point; only one of them is a personal blog entry and the only direct reply to the second Krugman blog entry. Such self-defensive personal blog entries usually are given a bit more slack under WP:RS. In the second Krugman entry he links to the whole DeLong-Murphy SPS blog debate and people who -want to get into that level of nitty gritty nitpicking and name-calling among economists on their personal blogs can just follow Krugman's links. Thus the paragraph in question can be removed. I also here put an Unreliable tag on the whole paragraph in question and noted in text that Krugman did NOT explicitly name Murphy in this blog entry, as he did specifically name him in the other two. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a request at wp:ver for outside input. This looks like a later stage of a complex discussion, and there is no clear pointer to / statement of what text is in question. Could somebody provide that? North8000 ( talk) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
@ North8000: Yes, there are three sources involved, and the text keeps changing. So, if may summarize what consensus appears to be heading towards, it's this:
Assuming that this hasn't already been done, I suggest the editors of the article rewrite the text based on that, and then come back, tell us what you came up with, and we can take another look. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that one thing that is very clear is that the BLP policy clearly prohibits using the DeLong self-published blog as a source on Murphy, and so it also prohibits any text on Murphy that is dependent on that source. North8000 ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Consider the salience of the facts reported: Paul Krugman noted that DeLong criticized Murphy's reaction to his [Murphy's] bet about CPI. It sounds like Murphy's bet is a salient fact because it's received some attention from prominent credible experts, even if only in blogs. But describing the commentary on the commentary might be beyond the limits of salience. Reliability is not the whole issue; if these comments and metacomments were themselves important, encyclopedia-worthy events, they would probably get published in something more weighty than a blog. See WP:BALASPS. — Ben Kovitz ( talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:Self-published sources reads: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. If you want to propose those policy changes go to the policy page. But don't try to create new policy on WP:RSN. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 00:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The most terrifying thing of all is that being completely, comprehensively, unmistakably, fundamentally, fatally, totally wrong has not led Robert Murphy to rethink or modify any of his analytical positions or ideological beliefs by even one iota.
Note that during this discussion Steeletrap has been trying to change policy at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Expert_SPS_ban_should_not_apply_to_opinion_statements.
To me this means that Steeletrap and others have accepted that this SPS cannot be used in the article except in a limited form as specifically described by Krugman. (I'll have to check to see if recent edits overstep those bounds.) Given this RSN is almost two weeks old, can we considered it closed? Or do we need a formal closure? Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There's been an ongoing discussion over at Napoleon Chagnon about the status of a book review ( http://anthroniche.com/darkness_documents/0246.htm ) as a RS for a contentious statement in a biography of a living person. Specifically the following claims:
Some anthropologists have criticized Chagnon's depiction of the Yanomami as fierce and violent.
Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has criticized Chagnon's methods.
I'm willing to accept that the page is a faithful reproduction of a Washing Post book review as it claims. The author of the review is
Marshall Sahlins, a respected authority in this field. The book he is reviewing is “Darkness in El Dorado” a work critical of Chagnon.
My issue is with two interconnected problems.
The first is that the review is essentially an opinion piece by the author, and one critical of Chagnon. This would make it unsuitable as a RS for a BLP as per WP:NEWSORG: “Reviews for books... can be opinion pieces.… Opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Since contentious material in BLPs require higher standards than most other material, I don't believe the review meets RS standard since the source is "rarely reliable".
The second issue is that, while the review contains criticisms of Chagnon that originate with Sahlins, it also contains criticisms that originate from “Darkness in El Dorado”, either quoted or paraphrased. This is done in such a way that I can not with certainty say which criticism are Sahlins’ own opinion, and which are being quoted/paraphrased by the work under review. For example, "most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years" seems to be coming from Sahlins himself. “he also attempted to win the hearts and minds of the people by a calculated redistribution of material wealth, and in so doing, managed to further destabilize the countryside and escalate the violence” is an almost direct quote from “Darkness in El Dorado” and not, presumably, Sahlins opinion. Though it could be. As a result, it’s very difficult to say which parts of this review are purely Shalins’ opinions, and which are selections lifted from the work under review.
I would like a consensus on two points:
1) The article in question can not be used as a RS for contentious statements of fact in a BLP because it is clearly an opinion piece by Sahlins This is not a RS for the statements of fact that multiple anthropologists have criticised Chagnon, and that criticisms of Changon persisted over a prolonged period. . This should be uncontroversial, though two editors in that article disagree.
2) It is unsuitable even for a claim that Sahlins is critical of Chagnon. This is because it is so hard to separate the criticisms that originate with Sahlins from the criticisms that he is reviewing form the work. There is not a single clear example of a criticism originating from Sahlins in the article. Even the statement , "most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years", which is fairly clearly from Sahlins, isn’t actually a criticism of Chagnon by Sahlins. It’s just a note of the fact that Chagnon was criticised by others, which may or may not have included Sahlins. It’s also a statement of fact which, if the previous point is upheld, can’t be reliably sourced from this opinion piece. No other critical material in the article is clearly originating from Sahlins. The article is clearly critical in tone, but I think we need something more concrete than "tone" for a contentious statement in a BLP. I think the least we should have is a single sentence that is both clearly critical of Chagnon and clearly originating from Sahlins and not a review of a passage in “Darkness in El Dorado”.
Thanks for your time.
Mark Marathon (
talk) 04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Is http://www.deathreference.com/ a reliable source, specifically for the claim at [19] that
"throughout Pre-Modern Europe, Child sacrifice was a thriving practice. Children and infants were commonly sacrificed either near river crossings or within new buildings, in which they were then buried or crushed under the foundation stones.
This seems to refer to http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Sacrifice.html: "Burials suggestive of sacrifice have been found in the sites of ancient bridges and buildings throughout Asia, Europe, and North Africa. It was widely believed that territories were under the control of local gods who might be angered by intrusions. Blood sacrifice at border crossings (often marked by rivers) and within buildings were thought to be prudent offerings. Sacrificial victims were also interred beneath city gates.
Children were often selected as the sacrificial offerings. Excavation of the Bridge Gate in Bremen, Germany, and several ancient fortresses in Wales are among the many examples of this practice." The page has a bibliography, which looks like a list of credible secondary sources, but these claims are not specifically referenced (and our writing is also stretching the claims too far even if the source is to be considered reliable.) I also haven't found any description of the site's editorial control. Should we use it?
In the same paragraph, "Child-Sacrifice Among European Witches M. A. Murray Man Vol. 18, (Apr., 1918), pp. 60-62" is referenced. I am not convinced that this identifies the reference properly - which journal was it in? and in any case it could be suggested to be out of date. I think that we should not rely on it, but I would be grateful for your ideas. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed it from a BLP and noticed it's currently being used in 28 other articles. It looks like a part of a spamming campaign, but I thought I'd first see what others think of the site as a source. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@Petrarchan47 has accused me of engaging in a Wikipedia campaign of trying to discredit U.S. government "whistleblowers." I disagree, of course. If noting, as I did, that a particular "whistleblower" has also been diagnosed as paranoid psychotic happens to discredit said "whistleblower," the party doing the discrediting is not me but the reliable source reporting the diagnosis. Currently at issue is having Wikipedia cite other members of the self-styled whistleblowing community in the various biographies of these people. An example Wikipedia edit may be found here, where Sibel Edmonds is cited as a "whistleblower" with no reference to the fact this person is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Elsewhere Sibel Edmonds notes that "Both mainstream and quasi alternative media outlets refused to publish or air Mr. Tice’s revelations" and declares that this is because MSNBC "censored his entire testimony on these stunning allegations!" Petrarchan47 referred me to Edmonds' view here that there is conspiratorial suppression at work to answer my question "why Tice's claims weren't picked up by respectable media." Is Sibel Edmonds a reliable source? Does citing the opinions of other "whistleblowers" who share a beef with the U.S. government add value to a "whistleblower"'s article or is it more of a self-referencing loop?-- Brian Dell ( talk) 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Tiger versus lion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bigcat82 is constantly removing refferences and sources to the lion vs tiger subject and "claiming" that they are --un-reliable--, have no sources, are fictional ect...
I am here to show the proof that they are reliable and not what he insinuated"
This is not a fictional book, but a consenses by a Historian with a masters degree:
Master's degree In History from The Vermont College of Norwich University [1] Ken spiro comments, "The Romans went all over the empire to find wild, exotic beast to astonish the crowds. Next, the Arena was lowered to feature combat between them, Romans cheered as Lions tore apart Tigers, tigers went up against Bears, Leopards against Wolves. It goes without saying that the Romans had never heard of animal rights" [2]
- Maters degree info: http://www.kenspiro.com - Direct link to the quota: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Romans+cheered+as+lions+tore+apart+tigers&btnG= - Year: 2002 - Author: Ken spiro - Book title: WorldPerfect: The Jewish Impact on Civilization - isbn: 978-0-415-10453-1
In fact, his sources are the ones that are not reliable: /info/en/?search=Tiger_versus_lion
His refferences main source comes from a Zoo keeper, not a historian with a degree in history: http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/ewtwet.jpg
Random people who are not qualified (no scholar knowledge) specifically in history via knowledgable to historical records and are basing it off hear say, should not be replacing things that have Masters degrees.
Also:
"Another mosaic in the house of the Faun, now badly damaged, showed a lion standing over a prostrate tiger." [3]
- Direct link to the quota: http://books.google.com/books?id=vt9JwsNcKzwC&pg=PA148&dq=house+of+faun+lion+tiger+prostrate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QDnUuK0PM6JogSW6YDgBw&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAA - Year: 1986 - Author: Jerome Jordon Pollitt - Book title: Art in the Hellenistic Age - isbn: 9780521276726
As the original refferences was subjectively used without mentioning the lion standing over a prostrate tiger.
So I await a consenses in removing things that is unreliable and placing a block on Bigcat82's on his subjective, cherrying picking and constant erasing of reliable content for the Lion vs Tiger subject as he has repeatively undid a more reliable vision numerous times: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tiger_versus_lion&diff=prev&oldid=591817160
As I just showed its proof of reliability. Golden Prime ( talk) 01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
And on and on the fairess wheel goes, first I put Clyde beatty in, a person who had directly observed them fighting as stated in his book observation upon 40 years experince (as I provided) and has worked with 1,000 tigers and lions, has accumilated atleast 25 tigers that were killed his lions documented by over 10 credible sources, of news paper and book archives, who he is the Guiness records book holders working with both lion and tiger simultaneously (note I say simultaneously) none of whats in place have any verification working with both and specifically seen them fight, (or else prove it, prove those sources have seen fights, not just assuming) backed by via news articles and books, yet it gets removed in conjunction by a absolutely no credentials (History) level of science, then when I put in a scholar masters degree authority, the zoo keeper who is less credible and reliable then both of the contradictive exclusions, its then dis-regarded yet again, just because a person owns a dog, doesnt mean he knows the history, origin, import/export, leinage, blood-line ect....the same way a zoo keeper doesnt know the history nor cites any specifics of the romans, there were over 50 emperors, in over 5 centurys, where are the records then to support the zoo keeper? There should be thousands if you make a claim such as large as an empire, not just 1, yet I have over 10 Historians, Theologians, Archaeologist that all supports the lion was the usual victor in rome, along with 8 historical artifacts of origination of rome/italy...its non-challangeable when you only have one staged account and one opinion from a nobody (No credentials or tangible proof).
So what exactly are you trying to say? That he (Bigcat82) can post whatever he wants and I and anyone to oppse it will have the data removed? All the revisions are being undone to his bias subjective vision, yet no clarification is being emited, up-held or even verified, the bottom line is, why is Bigcat82 removing things off thats just as reliable and acedemcially even more so then his, and...only...keeping his? Dont you think then both should be heard, used, provided and or be known to the public?
His revision is so bias its ridiculous, whats next, you are gonna tell me that there are only 2 sub-speices of tigers as Bigcat82 has as current? lol
I'm not chllangeing anything, I pointing out the facts, published? What are you talking about, 10 people quoting one incident (Martials Poem/epigram), doesent make many, its still counts as only one, just because 100 newspaper stations publish muhamid ali kocked out george foremen, doesnt mean ali knockd out foreman 100 times, again, there is only one credible and reliable source of the romans/rome/italy historical basis that mentions a tiger defeating a lion, which is Martial even the people who studyed that epigram stated it was un-clear f it was staged, since in that same event awoman killed a lion too, really? A average lady killed a 500lb killing machine...lol, thats it...on the other hand from ancient to modern records we have:
All solid proof of anecdoctal records the same as martials poem showing lions usually won, to actual artifacts depicting lions the victor via mosaics, engravings, etches, antiques, ect ect, historians and thelogian consenses all with Ph.d and Masters degrees, actual staged accounts in other amphitheaters by eye witnesses where the lion won, just so happens all the books, newspaper articles ect all quote the same man as their refference, Marcus Valerius Martialis, and it is widely accepted as the epigram is merely just a poem, there are literaly hundreds of poems written of lions defeating tigers...so lets not go there.
Thats only records in rome/italy, their are (on hand) records from India, Germany, British, chinese, japanese, persians, ect ect, all suporting the lion was the usual winner.
The historic value trumps anything that supports the theory tigers won basically 30x fold, this is consistant with modern experts via animal trainers who observed them fighting, it is in consistantcy with science professions such as Biologist, Ecologist and Natralits, all the credible data indicates the lion is the superior animal in combat, all nationalitys and cultures has the lion the superior animal either in healdry or actual accounts, the same way the on record the lion has killed the tiger more than vice versa.
This subject with out the life experinces and memoirs of Clyde beatty, Bert nelson, terrell Jacobs, Dave hoover and more has no value, no substance, and without those authoritys this subject should be classified as medicore and un-educated, in fact ignorant.
So I say again, I am not against things that support the tiger, I just want both sides as truthful as possible and both sides to be heard, not erasing things because someone is incredibily subjective and bias... is that so much to ask? Golden Prime ( talk) 07:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Golden Prime ( talk) 08:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Golden Prime ( talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump Ohh, you don't say...and what about everythig else I have mentioned, just grabage too then eh? This topic is so fragile, it needs consistant "hints" that all lead to the same conclusions, not just living in a life of denial obscuring single/individual refferences, so what you are saying is, all the things I have mentioned will be remained hidden from the world because some subjective bias people dont want anyone disagreeing with their own un-educated opinions on subject? lol Maybe you should read up on some of the basics on this subject before you go calling BS to a person who has a Masters degree, while in vice versa you have zero knowledge:
(Last Post on the page) http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17524&PN=6
Oh, wow...all that info, yet not one according to the bias necessities of wiki=goers, finds it reliable...XD WOW! Yeah and cherry picking 2 sub-species of the largest tigers to hide the fact lions on average (as a species) are heavier, taller, larger and bigger in size compared to tigers...what happened to the Sumatran tiger, The Indo-chinese, Javan, south-china, caspian, bali and malayian tiger...ohhh, Oblivious and re-written out of history just because they stand little to no chance to even the smaller sub-species of asiatic lions leo persica, and specifically to your comment, he does not have to know current biology 101 of tigers and lions of today, thats not the catagorie/profession he is in, if you even looked into the subject, Ken spiro was in the HISTORY CATAGORIE, as historians study things that are pre-recorded via remnents, archaeology and written documentation that is passed on from the past, so I dont know even why you commented on that, the other catagorie of EXPERTS OPINIONS would then be able to clarify their profession, as in observation, hypothetises, actual studys of live individuals, which yet again is what I brought via Terrell jacobs and Clyde beatty...probably the highest on hand observers intwined with on the field observers and zoologist such as Dave salmoni and Kailash sankhalka...and yet consistantly on a hour to hour basis has to have the same bias revisioner safe guard it by erasing anything that supports the lion. lol Golden Prime ( talk) 08:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
It woulden't matter to me, since someone would be to blame, it has been un-checked via over 5 years, I've conducted a scan of how many sites have cited and refferenced wiki on this subject, an its almost in the thousands with a ripple effect of viewers in the hudred millions, with incredibly mis-informed people all being propelled by a bias revisioner...so if anyone is to blame, it should be wikipedias moderators and admins, as I have only seen nothing but negativity be promoted out of what wiki was allowed to be spewed out, propaganda, ignorance, lies, fakes and more...for shame. Golden Prime ( talk) 08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My behavior? Whats wrong with it...so basically the rightous, the person who wants to be fair, truthful ect has to be victimized by some uneducated people on subject who basically just pointed out in a small time frame 1/100th Bigcat82 was abusing the ethics of this website, and all I did was point out some mistakes, faults, exploits reliability/credability factors, and exposer of un-phantomed subjectivity unchecked biasness, and yet the very person who was frequent (Bigcat82) for years on this subject slipped passed abusing wiki as a propelling device to get out his own bias wants to pollute the world, cloaked unseen for about half a decade pushing out his own selfish needs without one, just one person interveening and having it adressed, moderated, reviewed, corrected, assest properly...and yet he goes un-corrected, un-challanged and unpunished...in fact aided/helped...Huh!
So what you're saying is, Bias intentions(Bigcat82)>>>>>>>Fair assement(Golden Prime)???? Okay, I'm done, I'll take it else where then. No biggie, since absolutely no one gave reasons and was able to prove the accounts of lions killing tigers were un-reliable...just people living in denial, purposely lying for a false cause... you can stay in a demented, delusional world of bias subjective B.S, I won't Golden Prime ( talk) 10:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One more last thing, I request a user Block on Bigcat82, since he isint and can't give any tangible proof that whats in place now as my last undo, is unreliable, as all are accounted for via newspaper acrhives, heres of an example...
This is a Newspaper archive with all its credentials:
The Times 2 September 1936 › Page 12 Clyde beattys lion named boss tweed, kills 3 tigers in one fight http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E474f4BFJh8J:http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/38953345/+clyde+beatty++lion+tiger++killed+++site:www.newspapers.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&prmd=ivns&strip=1
Thats how it would look like in through the archive, you can go to its main site and purchase a Pdf copy of the article to view it your self, heres another account and how a snap shot peice of the article would look like:
lion kills three tiger’s Source: Altoona Mirror, September 27. 1928 http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k625/Leofwin/lionvstigeraccount4.jpg
So since Bigcat82 has no reason of removing what I posted of lions killing tigers accounts via reliable sources, it is in terms vandalizing, so I would like a mod to place a block on his account if he persist in removing credible and reliable occaisons to have a bias subjective and pro-data topic. Golden Prime ( talk) 01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You see what I mean, I don't like wasting my time like that...you just called them false...how, wheres your tangibe proof they are false, just saying it is dosent make them false, they are all directed straight to its root source, tell me exactly how is his (Bigcat82) a good case and mine isint? You dident even check for any of his verifications, so stop lying, there are even previous people who undid his revision since they actually read its content, answer one question andy...just one...are there only two sub-speices of tigers?
NO! There are NINE! So how is whats in place already a good case? You shouldent even be replying if you arnt interested in improving anything on this subject, I don't even know why you're here, you say you want reliability, and yet you make up lies and subjective remarks and hide behind wiki rules of abusing authoritys where its not needed. Golden Prime ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
lol you have nothing on me and are making up lies after lie andy, go report me, who cares, we both know you have nothing that was true...I'm waiting andy, it states here WIKIPEDIA'S OWN SOURCE! Tiger there are NINE SUBSPEICES OF TIGERS! I previously added a revision even before the one you undid as ignorant and faslely proclaimed as you were, you offered no proof, and yet the former revision I had mentioned had 2 BIOLOGIST (you can check my other contribs) state all the tiger averages, and the lion on average is heavier and taller, I'm trying to be as historically as accurate as possible, what are you doing? Being subjective, bias and hiding the truth and twisting facts?
You, are CONTRADICITING wikipedias own sources, there are more than 2 sub-species of tigers, yet you and flat out reverted to less reliable content...jesus christ talk about hypocrites, good case? You have NO CASE, you cant even exept the basic cases let alone you ignorantly trying to dis-prove of scholar/masters level'd people who you dident even know the concept between history and biology was supposed to be comprehended...yet again, making up things and being bias and subjective...why are you even here, to be a spaming bot?
The bottom line is you dident state why you revereted it to a less reliable one and yet all the accounts, everysingle one of them had a source, and you still reverted it out lol Golden Prime ( talk) 03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Amiannoying is pretty well edited and comfortably less misleading compared to NNDB, but still what you think about it? Because I have found some errors in Amiannoying as well.
Thanks Noteswork ( talk) 13:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Seeking advice on the suitability of http://www.racingsportscars.com as a source, as used in the Vittorugo Mallucci article. The website is registered to a named individual, rather than an organisation, and I suspect the content is self-published and lacking any editorial oversight. Jaggee ( talk) 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The conclusion I see is that the site is not reliable, but is nevertheless widely used. I guess if it is the only source of something, then that something isn't all that notable - and can be removed. If it just the only online source, of content that could be sourced elsewhere in paper publications, then we need to dig out those paper sources. Either way, is there any policy-compliant reason to allow this site to be kept as a source cited in any article? Jaggee ( talk) 09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Better late than never getting to this issue on my long list, dealing with two stalled talk page discussions:
Thoughts as to whether the source is RS for these uses? Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if it is an RS or not, but I'm not sure the opinions of undergraduates are encyclopedic. For a 38 year old book of the significance claimed by the article, surely we can find reviews from more significant publications. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Gamaliel: 's question, and a look at the talk page, reminded me that I got too busy to deal with opposition to including two WP:RS about Nobel Prize winner Freidrich Hayek's comments' on Block's book. Rather than start a separate thread, might as well ask here.
So does any uninvolved editor see a problem with using both those Hayek-related materials in both articles? Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hayek's comments are shown on p. xii of the Fleet Press original edition of the book. Presumably Hayek read the book before it was published. Fleet Press was a reputable publisher of non-fiction that was later absorbed into Macmillan, which is a reputable publisher of non-fiction. Therefore the comments are reliably sourced. Gray used the comments on p. xii as a source. He references the Fleet edition of the book, although he does not mention the page number. Gray's book is also rs, and was published by Routledge, an academic publisher. The fact that Hayek's comments also appear "on a promotional page for the book near the "checkout" button on Mises.org. bookstore", or the fact that the LvMI republished the book, does not mean that the comments published in the Fleet Press edition are no longer rs. TFD ( talk) 19:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek "endorsed" Block's book. [4] Hayek wrote in an introductory commentary in the book that looking through it "made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority." [5]
John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek "endorsed" Block's book. [6] In this prefatory comment Hayek observes that looking through the book made him feel that he was again "exposed to the shock therapy by which ... the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it," explaining that an understanding of economics requires the rejection of illusions and prejudices, and that it was a real service to have demonstrated "the falsity of these stereotypes".' [7]
I think the fact that Gray mentions Hayek's endorsement is actually more significant than the "endorsement" itself. In the endorsement, which appears to be a solicited promotional statement, Hayek does not even say that he has read the book. He did however choose to lend his name to the promotion of it so I think that Gray's text and his characterization of Block's book as Mandevillean are good WP content. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor pointed out on my talk page [25] about using http://www.thedrum.com/ for citations. I am not sure about the reliability of the site. Kindly, let us know. Thank you,-- Bisswajit 14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I've seen sites that were blacklisted before (like Exclaim! which I tried to use when it was blacklisted) become acceptable over time, so I don't doubt it could happen here. Nothing about this particular website strikes me as odd, and I wonder why it is not allowed.
Here's the link I want to use (nowiki because I will be prevented from posting if I allow it to link):
http://www.examiner.com/review/earthless-and-joy-bring-a-taste-of-san-diego-psych-rock-to-the-pacific-northwest
For the record, I hope to use it in Earthless discography (I had added a statement to the lead paragraph that I reverted because I was hoping to install a citation for it using this link later in the article). I was trying to point out how the band's live concert performances differ from their studio recordings (they don't play discrete songs, they melt songs into one another so that the concert as a whole is just one long song made of several and they don't stop playing until they've finished their set).
Before you ask: I believe this is relevant to the discussion of the reliability of sources because it appears that has had something to do with the site being blacklisted. I want to make sure this particular link is OK to use before I take it back to the spam whitelist and ask that this one be granted immunity to the overall embargo on the site itself. Does anyone see any reason why this link is not to be trusted? Can I use it to cite factual information? Lazy Bastard Guy 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a problem with a few sources on the current Moors article as they're currently being misquoted (possibly libeled), one from an Afrocentrist author known for pseudohistory, and one by some obscure author that has no validity.
The sources are the following: Ceylon and the Hollanders, 1658-1796, by, Pieris, P. E. 1874-1959, The Story of the Moors in Spain By Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman, and The Golden Age of the Moor by Ivan Van Sertima.
These sources are currently being used in the Moors article as I aforesaid.
In my opinion these sources should be replaced by reliable sources that support the material, and if that cannot be done, then the material should go with the source. ShawntheGod ( talk) 15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Are the awards portion of IMDB [39] part of the curated content that is considered reliable or is that part of the user generated stuff? that we do not use? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikpedia is allowing an online blog named the Sky Valley Chronicle who refuses post who it's writers are. The Sky Valley Chroncile was also connected with an attack piece and threats made to my life via Facebook and Wikipedia attack piece ( Anne Block) which Wikipedia removed citing it as an attack piece.
Hey all, I'd like to get some community opinions about the following site: r4rating.com. I first noticed some edits at the movie Drishyam, where an editor attempted twice to include reviews from r4rating here and here. I reverted both of those contributions because the movie article already presents a number of glowing reviews, and two more from a questionable source didn't seem to improve the article.
The contributing editor has also penned a declined AfC of the site here and based on their edit history, they seem to be here to promote r4rating.com by inserting links and reviews into articles. A rough look at the site suggests that the oddly branded "4 rating for you R RATING" (or R4 rating by you RATING ???) might be attempting to aggregate viewer response, akin to RottenTomatoes audience ratings or IMDb's viewer ratings. Curious if the community has any thoughts about this site's suitability for inclusion in movie articles, since I don't notice a lot of consideration for the audience's feelings in objective articles. I attempted to communicate with the contributor, but they ignored me and re-inserted their content into the Drishyam article. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 07:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for the existence, location and coordinates of Paloorkavu (and, by extension, of any other stubby village articles I come across and feel inclined to upgrade)? IndiaMapia doesn't say much about itself, and I can't find it in the noticeboard archives. Pam D 11:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Source: www.allicinfacts.com
Article: Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#European_colonization
Content: "Within a few years smallpox killed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European diseases weakening them further."
Copyright information says: Natural Health Publications Limited.
Terms of use: [47]
-- Langus ( t) 00:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Did someone really think this would fly as a source? Really?
Collect (
talk)
The new article Skaramuca sounds like a copy of some of the typical Serbian nationalist forum posts - a glaring WP:COATRACK violation which focuses on a purported Serbian nature of a surname and people, who today by and large seem to be Croatian. Specifically, the whole innuendo depends on Jevto Dedijer's 1909 book. Can this source be considered reliable for claims such as these? Given the confusingly wide scope of the article, talking about people having the same surname over a period of centuries (?) up to the present day, this could even be considered a WP:BLP violation. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Can the alternate reality game site ARGNet be considered a reliable source? I found a couple of articles online that I might want to use in an article, but I am not sure about the reliability of the site? SciGal ( talk) 13:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an RFC which may be of interest to editors here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#RFC_to_resolve_conflict_between_MOS:TM.2C_MOS:CT_WP:TITLETM_WP:RS_WP:COMMONNAME Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri and I reached an impasse on Talk:David Gould (basketball)/GA1 over the use of a basketball coach's résumé as sourced from his agent. My understanding is that résumés can be used as sources for facts per this and this. Note that the résumé was not put out by the subject but by a firm that could face prosecution if it is found to be inaccurate. Any help would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I just came across The Axis Air Forces:Flying in Support of the German Luftwaffe by Frank Joseph. ABC-CLIO describes him [48] as "professor of world archaeology with Japan's Savant Institute, and recipient of the Midwest Epigraphic Society's Victor Moseley Award. His published works include more than 20 books in as many foreign editions, such as Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45." Impressive, right? At face value, certainly sounds like a reliable source if you don't question it. But leaving aside the fact that the Savant Institute only seems to be mentioned on the web in connection with Joseph, we know Joseph better as Frank Collin, ex-Nazi and writer of New Age and fringe archaeology material. It's actually disappoint to see such a well known publisher misrepresent an author in this way, but a warning to all of us not to take publisher's statements at face value. Dougweller ( talk) 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I want to cite something from this report in the article Council on American–Islamic Relations, but another editor insists I can't, reverting me and another editor. Thanks in advance, Yambaram ( talk) 09:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I want to cite this page on the article Hebrew in order to write that there are 7 million native Hebrew speakers (the article currently uses a 1998 source which gives the ridiculous number of 5.3 million speakers, and a heated discussion on the talk page didn't produce any consensus about this). Thanks in advance, Yambaram ( talk) 08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
While not the most ideal source, can someone comment if this Deadspin article is reliable for the opinions of two journalists who are skeptical that Dock Ellis threw a no hitter while on LSD? This story has been around for decades, and the opinion by these journos seems highly relevant and provides some balance to this claim. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia entry on abstract (summary) states: "Consulting the abstract alone is inadequate for scholarship and may lead to inappropriate medical decisions. ... An abstract allows one to sift through copious amounts of papers for ones in which the researcher can have more confidence that they will be relevant to his or her research. Once papers are chosen based on the abstract, they must be read carefully to be evaluated for relevance. It is commonly surmised that one must not base reference citations on the abstract alone, but the entire merits of a paper."
That said, assuming that (in addition to the abstract) the complete article is available, should citations (or selected quotations) be made to the abstract? I have been under the impression that the article's text always takes dominance over the abstract, and that abstracts are not designed to be cited to. Please advise. -- Precision123 ( talk) 12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Does wikipidia now require to publish entire page/books hereafter? That would be copyright violation. Which is why google books is only showing a snippet preview and not the entire page. So, what is that now wikipedians are expecting to do? As per the legal requirement one is not supposed to publish/quote more than the text that is actually required. If that snippet preview is not clarifying the context there is no way one can quote more than that or otherwise it is a legal violation. Curious wikipedians wanting to know the entire facts must buy the book. Wikipedians must also realize there are publishing houses and people making their living over writing books. Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It is all a matter of degree. Nobody will argue that the best thing is to read a source in its entirety and extract information from there. If that is not plausible, one can use some part of the source with differing degrees of danger involved. A Google snippet is one of the most dangerous things, as it is a more or less random bit of text that lacks any selection process that would make it representative. (Once I cited a very clear statement in a snippet only to later discover that the next sentence, invisible in the snippet, said something like "but nobody believes that any more".) Abstracts written by authors (the usual thing for journal articles) are much better than that because they are intended by the authors to be valid summaries. If one wants to summarise a whole article, rather than to cite a detail, the author's abstract is often a very good start and even protects you from a charge that you are not reflecting the author's opinion correctly. To cite a detail from an article, the abstract might not be good enough since the author might have simplified it for brevity (journals often have word limits on abstracts). An abstract written by someone else is much less reliable than one written by the author, and I would not normally trust it unless the writer of the abstract is an expert in the field. Similarly for book reviews. Zero talk 13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Easy peasy. Read the article. Read the abstract. If the abstract is a fair representation of what's in the article then go ahead and use it. If the abstract is not a fair representation of what's in the article then don't. The abstract is usually (though not always) the author's attempt at summary - far better to trust their choice of summary than an anonymous Wikipedia editor's (who likely has an axe to grind and doesn't have to go through a peer review process to grind it.) You're welcome. Dan Murphy ( talk) 23:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
[54]ABSTRACTS: Sometimes the index entry will include, following the basic citation, an Abstract. An abstract is simply a summary of the main points of the article. This is more common in a specialized subject index. The purpose is to allow the researcher an idea of the article's content before taking the time to go to the actual article. Abstracts often contain important and useful information but using the information in the abstract (perhaps 50-100 words) is in no way the same as reading and summarizing the actual article. Do not cite the Abstract as if it were the complete article!
[55] -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Never Cite Just the Abstract! Citing to just an article's abstract does not confirm for the reader that you have conducted a thorough or reliable review of the literature. If the full-text is not available, search the HOMER catalog by journal title to see if we have it. If USC does not have the journal, you can request it from our interlibrary loan and document delivery service.
I don't see how it makes sense, even where MEDRS applies to say that you can never cite an abstract. We ought to be able to apply some common sense, and it really isn't comparable to using a Google snippet. It might make a difference whether you are citing the abstract for findings or background information, and it's going to be important to consider the possibility that the abstract might lack some important context or caveat. For example, this abstract contains the information that there is no known cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. I fail to see what difference it makes whether I source that information to the abstract or the article. It's not as if I am likely to download the full article and find that the statement is false. Formerip ( talk) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Here are some more citation guides and descriptions of abstracts:
Remember: Abstracts do not give you a complete picture. They may sometimes be inaccurate in the details, so you should not cite the abstract. If the abstract and the discussion differ, you should go with the information given in the introduction.
You should not cite an abstract, which is simply a condensed summary of the article written by the author to help researchers know if the information will be helpful.
Abstracts should not be cited unless the abstract is the only available reference to an important concept.
Abstracts cannot be cited as references.
-- Precision123 ( talk) 06:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Precision123 is thoroughly confused (and probably not alone in this) with the distinction between citation and quotation. Academic guidelines want you to cite the full paper; but that's we do too. But I see no problems with quoting (from) abstracts in general; they are part of the full paper. Sometimes it might be necessary to add context from the full paper, but it's rare that the abstract (which is written by the authors themselves) doesn't correctly summarize their own paper. In some areas of research, even the "full" paper might not have all the details, some of which might be relegated to a technical report. So it depends if you need those details or not...
Also, abstracts aren't usually written willy-nilly; the rule of thumb is that ten to 500 times more people will read your abstract than will read your full paper [60]; this isn't a great secret and is something you can read in any academic/science writing tutorial. So any researcher worth his salt will usually write a useful abstract (with that fact about readership in mind).
As for following to the letter the essay-writing advice pages addressed to college sophomores (at best), which say one must read the whole work before citing it, ask yourselves if some academic cites a several-hundred-pages book, say [61], (which has some 500 citations in GS or ACM DL), simply to say that "SPARK is a subset of Ada focused on safety-critical software development using formal methods [Barnes 2003]." is okay or not without him/her heaving read the whole 430 pages of the book (which doesn't even have a formal abstract, but you can probably equate the book's introduction with that). Because that's what an academic will do: cite the most authoritative (which usually means the most detailed) source on something, even when they mention it in one sentence and almost certainly haven't read the whole text (because they don't need to for what they are citing it for.)
By the way, the heading on top of this noticeboard discourages this kind of purely theoretical discussion as counterproductive. A concrete triplet of Source, [wiki] Article, and Content is what should be discussed here. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 04:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Most articles regarding Indian Railways quotes http://indiarailinfo.com/; http://erail.in/ and http://www.irfca.org as source. Though by far it may be accepted for map or creating route diagrams, but distance between any two railway stations or a length of a railway line largely differs with the Official website. Also the website is mostly with user generated content. So is the case of Indian Railways Fan Club ( Indian Railways Fan Club), most of the web pages are have contents user-generated and casting doubts over verifiability and reliability, since they are neither accurate (to the most) nor updated. -- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 16:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm writing here to check something for a new user, User:Kareem1790. He created a page for a new site called FolioWonk and has added the page as a source to various different articles. I've removed the sourcing since it's a new and unproven site, but I thought I'd ask here for confirmation. Here's one of the links added. The page does seem to have an editorial board, but I can't truly verify how much editing goes on and so on- you guys know the usual drill about verifying editorial staff and whatnot. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Claims of Ghassanids being Hellenised backed by one unreliable source(source 3), and two misrepresented sources (sources 1 and 2):
that emigrated in the early 3rd century from the Southern Arabian Peninsula to the Levant region, where some merged with Greek-speaking Christians communities. [8] [9] [10]
Only the unreliable "Sufi Trails" source makes the claim that the Ghassanids were Hellenised. The other two sources never mention that. The editor failed to provide quotes/exact page numbers in the dedicated talk page section ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Ghassanids#Arabs.2FHellenisation). Article is currently protected due to edit warring (involving user Lazyfoxx who written the above). SaSH172 ( talk) 02:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Can http://www.aurangzeb.info/ can be used as a reliable source on wikipedia (it has the snaps of many of the original orders of a tyrant)?— Khabboos ( talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
saudiaramcoworld.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bowersock
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 160 | ← | Archive 162 | Archive 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | → | Archive 170 |
The main dispute is on Persecution of Hindus, where a user claims that "historians dispute it" while citing a single writer(not historian) named Simon Digby, and that he who disputed the "80 million" figure. So he should be added. While this figure remains largely accepted by number of historians.
And he keeps edit warring about it, without providing any secondary source that refer to his "dispute". Considering that here, Digby dispute(comment at most) is being used as secondary, so he must be recognized by other reliable source, before it is being recognized here? Bladesmulti ( talk) 15:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
But i somewhat agree with:-
Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right? Bladesmulti ( talk) 17:50, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Digby is questioning the figures and methods of Lal in a peer reviewed journal, and it is notable enough to mention his critique of Lal's methods since he's a British Scholar (and not a mere "writer" - last time I checked only scholars got their pieces published in academic journals). Given that you've stated before numerous times that "Digby does not exist" and that it is a "fabricated source" what you seem to be implying is that Digby warrants no mention and is unworthy of inclusion. You are trying to represent that as a world view, "80 million Hindus died" when Lal doesn't even claim that. Digby's critique is in a peer reviewed journal. The usual nutty sources seem to take Lal's words out of context (Koenrad isn't even reliable since he's right wing, and represents a biased viewpoint). I suspect that you're one of those Hindu fanatics who can't seem to able to distinguish fact from fiction given how hard you're trying to negate Digby's position (witness: " [is it] appropriate to even mention Digby or not(since he is not mentioned by any other sources for this so called "dispute""). StuffandTruth ( talk) 18:16, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Depends upon the author. It is no more a point whether he is historian or Not. Bigger point is whether he dispute the figure, and even more that if they are related to the hindu population. Bladesmulti ( talk) 19:11, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Quite a lot to read :) I will just give my answer to Bladesmulti's question, far above, "Now that makes such whole content to be unrelated. Right?" This is a good question: if Lal is talking generally about "decline in population", is that relevant to Persecution of Hindus? My opinion, for what it's worth, is that it may be sufficiently relevant as background material to be mentioned in the body of the article. If Lal is right, something in the period of Muslim domination was seriously bad for the wellbeing of the general population of India (the majority of whom were Hindus). To what extent that decline was linked to persecution, it would then be for other sources to say.
I repeat that that's just an opinion. If the consensus of those writing the article was that this material isn't relevant after all, I wouldn't argue. Andrew Dalby 14:28, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
1. Source – An article by professional writer Asher Schechter, published in the notable, Hebrew-language TheMarker, translated by three online services:
2. Wikipedia Article: Zeitgeist:_The_Movie#Critical_response
3. Content: For a year and a half, this Wikipedia article has referenced the Schecter article above. When I came to our article this month, the Schechter article was summarized as:
TheMarker characterized the evidence presented by Joseph in the movie as, for the most part, incomplete at best, and based on speculation at worst. TheMarker also wrote: "After all, the film was an art project, not intended as a coherent socio-economic analysis but to serve Joseph's creativity." TheMarker wrote that Joseph received severe criticism, and summarized the criticism by The Irish Times [which also appears within the same Wikipedia, a few paragraphs above]
This negative viewpoint seemed amiss, considering the title of Schecter's article and the reiteration of content appearing previously in our article. After reviewing the translations, I removed the direct quotations (not a good idea for translations), and I adjusted our summary to be more reflective of the source's overall opinion, as evidenced by what commonalities the three translations share:
Writing for TheMarker, Asher Schechter praised the film's viral popularity and foreshadowing to the Occupy movement, while admitting its evidence to be poor. Schechter excused its deficiencies in light of the movie originally being created as an art film, and he called its reach as an activist effort a success.
My rewrite attempts were deleted repeatedly, and I'm concerned this was done not for a question of verifiability, but rather for an editor's bias against the movie. I'm posting here following a suggestion on our article's talk-page from a third party (who preferred not to give weight to either side). I'm hoping to get additional, neutral opinions on referencing Schechter's general opinion of the movie within our article based on the commonalities in the three machine-translations above. Thank you, startswithj ( talk) 23:45, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
There is a dispute [5] over whether statements from an Associated Press (AP) article are reliable for a section of the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article that discusses media portrayals of Martin in the aftermath of the shooting. The AP article, "Old Photos May Have Shaped Public Reaction In Trayvon Martin Case", states as fact that an undated photograph of Martin was several years out of date at the time of the shooting, and incorporates quotes from journalism experts commenting on that premise, such as:
Both photos are a few years old and no longer entirely accurate. Yet they may have helped shape initial perceptions of the deadly shooting.
"When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," said Kenny Irby, who teaches visual journalism at the Poynter Institute, a journalism think tank in St. Petersburg, Fla.
An editor feels that because the AP article was published by a large number of news outlets, it should be regarded as a reliable source on which to base the Wikipedia article section. However, Martin's family have said that the photo had been taken only 6 months before the shooting, which occurred when he was 17. (Incidentally, although the point has not been a part of the editors' discussion, the AP article also states that a photo the media used to depict Zimmerman, who had shot Martin, shows Zimmerman wearing a jail uniform with an orange collar, but subsequent reporting [6] suggests that that photo actually showed Zimmerman in an orange polo shirt, not a jail uniform.)
The text in the Wikipedia article under discussion is:
Portrayals of Martin and Zimmerman The contrast in the photos of Martin and of Zimmerman which were most widely used in early media reports of the shooting may have influenced initial public perceptions of the case.[340][341] The most commonly published image of Martin, provided to media by his family,[342] showed a smiling baby-faced teen.[340][Note 13] The only image of Zimmerman initially available to news media was a 7-year-old police booking photograph released by law enforcement officials after the shooting.[341] The image showed a heavy-set Zimmerman who appeared to be unhappy or angry,[341] with an imposing stare.[340] The AP quoted academic Kenny Irby on the expected effect, "When you have such a lopsided visual comparison, it just stands to reason that people would rush to judgment," and another academic, Betsi Grabe, as saying that journalists will present stories as a struggle between good and evil "[i]f the ingredients are there."[340]
(citation #340 is the AP article)
There is a disagreement among editors over several questions related to this AP article:
(a) Should a section of the Wikipedia article that discusses media portrayals of Martin in the aftermath of the shooting be based on this AP article?
(b) Should quotations in the article from the journalism experts be included in the Wikipedia article section as above?
(c) Is the AP article's reliability on the issue of the photo's age so high that the mention of the disagreement should be placed in a footnote?
Dezastru (
talk) 21:01, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Dear source experts: An article ( David Reddish) that I was looking at (rather dubiously) had a source entry which led to the above web site. The source was supposed to be a book review. When I clicked on it, the web page asked me to install software to see the review. I didn't want to do that. Has anyone heard of this web site, and if so is it a repository of book reviews? — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:31, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
There are legitimate reasons to dispense chemical in this manner: crop dusting ... cloud seeding ... firefighting ... and smoke trails in air shows ... The chemtrails that have caused great concern are none of these ...
This book reads very sloppy, and it contains sensationalistic sentences that are not substantiated later.
He contradicts himself, first he says that sulphur dioxide was used in contrails, then says that some scientists proposed using it. He also makes scary comments about how this substance causes acid rain (note the use of "causes" instead of "would cause")
He also says that a certain laboratory "began shooting huge amounts of porous-walled glass microspheres into the stratosphere." but it only proposed doing so in one paper [7]. It's obvious he didn't check any of the original sources.
Note the negative reviews:
This source doesn't look reliable at all. -- Enric Naval ( talk) 16:42, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
Thinking to use it as reference for Rajshahi District. It will be fine? Bladesmulti ( talk) 12:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Bringing this here now because this has come up repeatedly at Robert P. Murphy as not RS for BLP. It was discussed at Talk:Robert_P._Murphy#Krugman:Misunderstanding_of_WP:BLOGS and at a WP:BLPN where no involved editors responded. However, it was removed and seemed settled as DeLong's blog not being RS, especially since better sources came up in the WP:BLPN discussion. A few hours after I got around to adding those better sources to the talk page discussion and inferred intention to properly rewrite the section, an involved editor put back the rejected info at this diff.
In short Paul Krugman has mentioned Murphy explicitly a couple times in his NY Times blog (
January 19, 2011 and
December 31, 2012). However, the added
Krugman blog entry does not mention Murphy and says: Brad DeLong vents his spleen on one example, a guy who has been predicting double-digit inflation for years but remains absolutely committed to his framework all the same. There are then two is a long descriptions of DeLong's criticism of Murphy from two different DeLong blog entries. (
See diff.) Seems like tortuous synthesis using a questionable source to me.
Carolmooredc (
Talkie-Talkie) 18:59, 14 January 2014 (UTC)
There's no WP:RS issue here. There's simply no such issue with this content or the sources. Wrong place for any concerns about this. SPECIFICO talk 00:41, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
It would seem that the policy on using the blog on a BLP as quoted above rules out the use of DeLong's blog, but not Krugman's commentary on DeLong's criticism of Murphy. I think this makes for a gap in the sourcing policy in relation to people such as Murphy that are of marginal notability in academia but promoted by advocacy affiliated publications--in this case, Libertarian, Miseian.
The problem is that outside of the context of Krugman's NYT blog, there is not going to be any response from prominent authorities in the field because that just serves to add credibility to the dubious "predictions" and the like being advocated. And that means it is harder for Wikipedians to convey the actual state of affairs to the reader in such cases.
I see that user
Itsmejudith has voiced support for its reliability, which I am in favor of, so maybe this is a case where
WP:IAR can be invoked. DeLong mentions "ideological beliefs" in that short post, which seems to be most relevant. --
Ubikwit
連絡
見学/迷惑 19:11, 19:18 24 January 2014 (UTC)
RS version of Krugman views. At this diff I put in material from the two Krugman blog entries which actually mention Murphy by name. I only link to Murphy's replies at this point; only one of them is a personal blog entry and the only direct reply to the second Krugman blog entry. Such self-defensive personal blog entries usually are given a bit more slack under WP:RS. In the second Krugman entry he links to the whole DeLong-Murphy SPS blog debate and people who -want to get into that level of nitty gritty nitpicking and name-calling among economists on their personal blogs can just follow Krugman's links. Thus the paragraph in question can be removed. I also here put an Unreliable tag on the whole paragraph in question and noted in text that Krugman did NOT explicitly name Murphy in this blog entry, as he did specifically name him in the other two. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 16:05, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
There was a request at wp:ver for outside input. This looks like a later stage of a complex discussion, and there is no clear pointer to / statement of what text is in question. Could somebody provide that? North8000 ( talk) 22:31, 15 January 2014 (UTC)
@ North8000: Yes, there are three sources involved, and the text keeps changing. So, if may summarize what consensus appears to be heading towards, it's this:
Assuming that this hasn't already been done, I suggest the editors of the article rewrite the text based on that, and then come back, tell us what you came up with, and we can take another look. A Quest For Knowledge ( talk) 18:25, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
I think that one thing that is very clear is that the BLP policy clearly prohibits using the DeLong self-published blog as a source on Murphy, and so it also prohibits any text on Murphy that is dependent on that source. North8000 ( talk) 21:08, 16 January 2014 (UTC)
Consider the salience of the facts reported: Paul Krugman noted that DeLong criticized Murphy's reaction to his [Murphy's] bet about CPI. It sounds like Murphy's bet is a salient fact because it's received some attention from prominent credible experts, even if only in blogs. But describing the commentary on the commentary might be beyond the limits of salience. Reliability is not the whole issue; if these comments and metacomments were themselves important, encyclopedia-worthy events, they would probably get published in something more weighty than a blog. See WP:BALASPS. — Ben Kovitz ( talk) 17:25, 20 January 2014 (UTC)
WP:Self-published sources reads: Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer. If you want to propose those policy changes go to the policy page. But don't try to create new policy on WP:RSN. Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 00:19, 26 January 2014 (UTC)
The most terrifying thing of all is that being completely, comprehensively, unmistakably, fundamentally, fatally, totally wrong has not led Robert Murphy to rethink or modify any of his analytical positions or ideological beliefs by even one iota.
Note that during this discussion Steeletrap has been trying to change policy at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability#Expert_SPS_ban_should_not_apply_to_opinion_statements.
To me this means that Steeletrap and others have accepted that this SPS cannot be used in the article except in a limited form as specifically described by Krugman. (I'll have to check to see if recent edits overstep those bounds.) Given this RSN is almost two weeks old, can we considered it closed? Or do we need a formal closure? Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 18:07, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
There's been an ongoing discussion over at Napoleon Chagnon about the status of a book review ( http://anthroniche.com/darkness_documents/0246.htm ) as a RS for a contentious statement in a biography of a living person. Specifically the following claims:
Some anthropologists have criticized Chagnon's depiction of the Yanomami as fierce and violent.
Anthropologist Marshall Sahlins has criticized Chagnon's methods.
I'm willing to accept that the page is a faithful reproduction of a Washing Post book review as it claims. The author of the review is
Marshall Sahlins, a respected authority in this field. The book he is reviewing is “Darkness in El Dorado” a work critical of Chagnon.
My issue is with two interconnected problems.
The first is that the review is essentially an opinion piece by the author, and one critical of Chagnon. This would make it unsuitable as a RS for a BLP as per WP:NEWSORG: “Reviews for books... can be opinion pieces.… Opinion pieces are reliable primary sources for statements attributed to that editor or author, but are rarely reliable for statements of fact. Since contentious material in BLPs require higher standards than most other material, I don't believe the review meets RS standard since the source is "rarely reliable".
The second issue is that, while the review contains criticisms of Chagnon that originate with Sahlins, it also contains criticisms that originate from “Darkness in El Dorado”, either quoted or paraphrased. This is done in such a way that I can not with certainty say which criticism are Sahlins’ own opinion, and which are being quoted/paraphrased by the work under review. For example, "most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years" seems to be coming from Sahlins himself. “he also attempted to win the hearts and minds of the people by a calculated redistribution of material wealth, and in so doing, managed to further destabilize the countryside and escalate the violence” is an almost direct quote from “Darkness in El Dorado” and not, presumably, Sahlins opinion. Though it could be. As a result, it’s very difficult to say which parts of this review are purely Shalins’ opinions, and which are selections lifted from the work under review.
I would like a consensus on two points:
1) The article in question can not be used as a RS for contentious statements of fact in a BLP because it is clearly an opinion piece by Sahlins This is not a RS for the statements of fact that multiple anthropologists have criticised Chagnon, and that criticisms of Changon persisted over a prolonged period. . This should be uncontroversial, though two editors in that article disagree.
2) It is unsuitable even for a claim that Sahlins is critical of Chagnon. This is because it is so hard to separate the criticisms that originate with Sahlins from the criticisms that he is reviewing form the work. There is not a single clear example of a criticism originating from Sahlins in the article. Even the statement , "most of the criticisms of Chagnon rehearsed by Tierney have been circulating among anthropologists for years", which is fairly clearly from Sahlins, isn’t actually a criticism of Chagnon by Sahlins. It’s just a note of the fact that Chagnon was criticised by others, which may or may not have included Sahlins. It’s also a statement of fact which, if the previous point is upheld, can’t be reliably sourced from this opinion piece. No other critical material in the article is clearly originating from Sahlins. The article is clearly critical in tone, but I think we need something more concrete than "tone" for a contentious statement in a BLP. I think the least we should have is a single sentence that is both clearly critical of Chagnon and clearly originating from Sahlins and not a review of a passage in “Darkness in El Dorado”.
Thanks for your time.
Mark Marathon (
talk) 04:05, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Is http://www.deathreference.com/ a reliable source, specifically for the claim at [19] that
"throughout Pre-Modern Europe, Child sacrifice was a thriving practice. Children and infants were commonly sacrificed either near river crossings or within new buildings, in which they were then buried or crushed under the foundation stones.
This seems to refer to http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Sacrifice.html: "Burials suggestive of sacrifice have been found in the sites of ancient bridges and buildings throughout Asia, Europe, and North Africa. It was widely believed that territories were under the control of local gods who might be angered by intrusions. Blood sacrifice at border crossings (often marked by rivers) and within buildings were thought to be prudent offerings. Sacrificial victims were also interred beneath city gates.
Children were often selected as the sacrificial offerings. Excavation of the Bridge Gate in Bremen, Germany, and several ancient fortresses in Wales are among the many examples of this practice." The page has a bibliography, which looks like a list of credible secondary sources, but these claims are not specifically referenced (and our writing is also stretching the claims too far even if the source is to be considered reliable.) I also haven't found any description of the site's editorial control. Should we use it?
In the same paragraph, "Child-Sacrifice Among European Witches M. A. Murray Man Vol. 18, (Apr., 1918), pp. 60-62" is referenced. I am not convinced that this identifies the reference properly - which journal was it in? and in any case it could be suggested to be out of date. I think that we should not rely on it, but I would be grateful for your ideas. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 12:57, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
I removed it from a BLP and noticed it's currently being used in 28 other articles. It looks like a part of a spamming campaign, but I thought I'd first see what others think of the site as a source. -- Ronz ( talk) 19:26, 29 January 2014 (UTC)
@Petrarchan47 has accused me of engaging in a Wikipedia campaign of trying to discredit U.S. government "whistleblowers." I disagree, of course. If noting, as I did, that a particular "whistleblower" has also been diagnosed as paranoid psychotic happens to discredit said "whistleblower," the party doing the discrediting is not me but the reliable source reporting the diagnosis. Currently at issue is having Wikipedia cite other members of the self-styled whistleblowing community in the various biographies of these people. An example Wikipedia edit may be found here, where Sibel Edmonds is cited as a "whistleblower" with no reference to the fact this person is also a 9/11 conspiracy theorist. Elsewhere Sibel Edmonds notes that "Both mainstream and quasi alternative media outlets refused to publish or air Mr. Tice’s revelations" and declares that this is because MSNBC "censored his entire testimony on these stunning allegations!" Petrarchan47 referred me to Edmonds' view here that there is conspiratorial suppression at work to answer my question "why Tice's claims weren't picked up by respectable media." Is Sibel Edmonds a reliable source? Does citing the opinions of other "whistleblowers" who share a beef with the U.S. government add value to a "whistleblower"'s article or is it more of a self-referencing loop?-- Brian Dell ( talk) 18:21, 30 January 2014 (UTC)
Tiger versus lion ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Bigcat82 is constantly removing refferences and sources to the lion vs tiger subject and "claiming" that they are --un-reliable--, have no sources, are fictional ect...
I am here to show the proof that they are reliable and not what he insinuated"
This is not a fictional book, but a consenses by a Historian with a masters degree:
Master's degree In History from The Vermont College of Norwich University [1] Ken spiro comments, "The Romans went all over the empire to find wild, exotic beast to astonish the crowds. Next, the Arena was lowered to feature combat between them, Romans cheered as Lions tore apart Tigers, tigers went up against Bears, Leopards against Wolves. It goes without saying that the Romans had never heard of animal rights" [2]
- Maters degree info: http://www.kenspiro.com - Direct link to the quota: http://www.google.com/search?tbm=bks&tbo=1&q=Romans+cheered+as+lions+tore+apart+tigers&btnG= - Year: 2002 - Author: Ken spiro - Book title: WorldPerfect: The Jewish Impact on Civilization - isbn: 978-0-415-10453-1
In fact, his sources are the ones that are not reliable: /info/en/?search=Tiger_versus_lion
His refferences main source comes from a Zoo keeper, not a historian with a degree in history: http://jackjacksonj.webs.com/ewtwet.jpg
Random people who are not qualified (no scholar knowledge) specifically in history via knowledgable to historical records and are basing it off hear say, should not be replacing things that have Masters degrees.
Also:
"Another mosaic in the house of the Faun, now badly damaged, showed a lion standing over a prostrate tiger." [3]
- Direct link to the quota: http://books.google.com/books?id=vt9JwsNcKzwC&pg=PA148&dq=house+of+faun+lion+tiger+prostrate&hl=en&sa=X&ei=5QDnUuK0PM6JogSW6YDgBw&ved=0CBAQ6AEwAA - Year: 1986 - Author: Jerome Jordon Pollitt - Book title: Art in the Hellenistic Age - isbn: 9780521276726
As the original refferences was subjectively used without mentioning the lion standing over a prostrate tiger.
So I await a consenses in removing things that is unreliable and placing a block on Bigcat82's on his subjective, cherrying picking and constant erasing of reliable content for the Lion vs Tiger subject as he has repeatively undid a more reliable vision numerous times: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tiger_versus_lion&diff=prev&oldid=591817160
As I just showed its proof of reliability. Golden Prime ( talk) 01:43, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
And on and on the fairess wheel goes, first I put Clyde beatty in, a person who had directly observed them fighting as stated in his book observation upon 40 years experince (as I provided) and has worked with 1,000 tigers and lions, has accumilated atleast 25 tigers that were killed his lions documented by over 10 credible sources, of news paper and book archives, who he is the Guiness records book holders working with both lion and tiger simultaneously (note I say simultaneously) none of whats in place have any verification working with both and specifically seen them fight, (or else prove it, prove those sources have seen fights, not just assuming) backed by via news articles and books, yet it gets removed in conjunction by a absolutely no credentials (History) level of science, then when I put in a scholar masters degree authority, the zoo keeper who is less credible and reliable then both of the contradictive exclusions, its then dis-regarded yet again, just because a person owns a dog, doesnt mean he knows the history, origin, import/export, leinage, blood-line ect....the same way a zoo keeper doesnt know the history nor cites any specifics of the romans, there were over 50 emperors, in over 5 centurys, where are the records then to support the zoo keeper? There should be thousands if you make a claim such as large as an empire, not just 1, yet I have over 10 Historians, Theologians, Archaeologist that all supports the lion was the usual victor in rome, along with 8 historical artifacts of origination of rome/italy...its non-challangeable when you only have one staged account and one opinion from a nobody (No credentials or tangible proof).
So what exactly are you trying to say? That he (Bigcat82) can post whatever he wants and I and anyone to oppse it will have the data removed? All the revisions are being undone to his bias subjective vision, yet no clarification is being emited, up-held or even verified, the bottom line is, why is Bigcat82 removing things off thats just as reliable and acedemcially even more so then his, and...only...keeping his? Dont you think then both should be heard, used, provided and or be known to the public?
His revision is so bias its ridiculous, whats next, you are gonna tell me that there are only 2 sub-speices of tigers as Bigcat82 has as current? lol
I'm not chllangeing anything, I pointing out the facts, published? What are you talking about, 10 people quoting one incident (Martials Poem/epigram), doesent make many, its still counts as only one, just because 100 newspaper stations publish muhamid ali kocked out george foremen, doesnt mean ali knockd out foreman 100 times, again, there is only one credible and reliable source of the romans/rome/italy historical basis that mentions a tiger defeating a lion, which is Martial even the people who studyed that epigram stated it was un-clear f it was staged, since in that same event awoman killed a lion too, really? A average lady killed a 500lb killing machine...lol, thats it...on the other hand from ancient to modern records we have:
All solid proof of anecdoctal records the same as martials poem showing lions usually won, to actual artifacts depicting lions the victor via mosaics, engravings, etches, antiques, ect ect, historians and thelogian consenses all with Ph.d and Masters degrees, actual staged accounts in other amphitheaters by eye witnesses where the lion won, just so happens all the books, newspaper articles ect all quote the same man as their refference, Marcus Valerius Martialis, and it is widely accepted as the epigram is merely just a poem, there are literaly hundreds of poems written of lions defeating tigers...so lets not go there.
Thats only records in rome/italy, their are (on hand) records from India, Germany, British, chinese, japanese, persians, ect ect, all suporting the lion was the usual winner.
The historic value trumps anything that supports the theory tigers won basically 30x fold, this is consistant with modern experts via animal trainers who observed them fighting, it is in consistantcy with science professions such as Biologist, Ecologist and Natralits, all the credible data indicates the lion is the superior animal in combat, all nationalitys and cultures has the lion the superior animal either in healdry or actual accounts, the same way the on record the lion has killed the tiger more than vice versa.
This subject with out the life experinces and memoirs of Clyde beatty, Bert nelson, terrell Jacobs, Dave hoover and more has no value, no substance, and without those authoritys this subject should be classified as medicore and un-educated, in fact ignorant.
So I say again, I am not against things that support the tiger, I just want both sides as truthful as possible and both sides to be heard, not erasing things because someone is incredibily subjective and bias... is that so much to ask? Golden Prime ( talk) 07:53, 28 January 2014 (UTC) Golden Prime ( talk) 08:03, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Golden Prime ( talk) 02:42, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
AndyTheGrump Ohh, you don't say...and what about everythig else I have mentioned, just grabage too then eh? This topic is so fragile, it needs consistant "hints" that all lead to the same conclusions, not just living in a life of denial obscuring single/individual refferences, so what you are saying is, all the things I have mentioned will be remained hidden from the world because some subjective bias people dont want anyone disagreeing with their own un-educated opinions on subject? lol Maybe you should read up on some of the basics on this subject before you go calling BS to a person who has a Masters degree, while in vice versa you have zero knowledge:
(Last Post on the page) http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=17524&PN=6
Oh, wow...all that info, yet not one according to the bias necessities of wiki=goers, finds it reliable...XD WOW! Yeah and cherry picking 2 sub-species of the largest tigers to hide the fact lions on average (as a species) are heavier, taller, larger and bigger in size compared to tigers...what happened to the Sumatran tiger, The Indo-chinese, Javan, south-china, caspian, bali and malayian tiger...ohhh, Oblivious and re-written out of history just because they stand little to no chance to even the smaller sub-species of asiatic lions leo persica, and specifically to your comment, he does not have to know current biology 101 of tigers and lions of today, thats not the catagorie/profession he is in, if you even looked into the subject, Ken spiro was in the HISTORY CATAGORIE, as historians study things that are pre-recorded via remnents, archaeology and written documentation that is passed on from the past, so I dont know even why you commented on that, the other catagorie of EXPERTS OPINIONS would then be able to clarify their profession, as in observation, hypothetises, actual studys of live individuals, which yet again is what I brought via Terrell jacobs and Clyde beatty...probably the highest on hand observers intwined with on the field observers and zoologist such as Dave salmoni and Kailash sankhalka...and yet consistantly on a hour to hour basis has to have the same bias revisioner safe guard it by erasing anything that supports the lion. lol Golden Prime ( talk) 08:30, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
It woulden't matter to me, since someone would be to blame, it has been un-checked via over 5 years, I've conducted a scan of how many sites have cited and refferenced wiki on this subject, an its almost in the thousands with a ripple effect of viewers in the hudred millions, with incredibly mis-informed people all being propelled by a bias revisioner...so if anyone is to blame, it should be wikipedias moderators and admins, as I have only seen nothing but negativity be promoted out of what wiki was allowed to be spewed out, propaganda, ignorance, lies, fakes and more...for shame. Golden Prime ( talk) 08:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
My behavior? Whats wrong with it...so basically the rightous, the person who wants to be fair, truthful ect has to be victimized by some uneducated people on subject who basically just pointed out in a small time frame 1/100th Bigcat82 was abusing the ethics of this website, and all I did was point out some mistakes, faults, exploits reliability/credability factors, and exposer of un-phantomed subjectivity unchecked biasness, and yet the very person who was frequent (Bigcat82) for years on this subject slipped passed abusing wiki as a propelling device to get out his own bias wants to pollute the world, cloaked unseen for about half a decade pushing out his own selfish needs without one, just one person interveening and having it adressed, moderated, reviewed, corrected, assest properly...and yet he goes un-corrected, un-challanged and unpunished...in fact aided/helped...Huh!
So what you're saying is, Bias intentions(Bigcat82)>>>>>>>Fair assement(Golden Prime)???? Okay, I'm done, I'll take it else where then. No biggie, since absolutely no one gave reasons and was able to prove the accounts of lions killing tigers were un-reliable...just people living in denial, purposely lying for a false cause... you can stay in a demented, delusional world of bias subjective B.S, I won't Golden Prime ( talk) 10:06, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
One more last thing, I request a user Block on Bigcat82, since he isint and can't give any tangible proof that whats in place now as my last undo, is unreliable, as all are accounted for via newspaper acrhives, heres of an example...
This is a Newspaper archive with all its credentials:
The Times 2 September 1936 › Page 12 Clyde beattys lion named boss tweed, kills 3 tigers in one fight http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:E474f4BFJh8J:http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/38953345/+clyde+beatty++lion+tiger++killed+++site:www.newspapers.com&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&prmd=ivns&strip=1
Thats how it would look like in through the archive, you can go to its main site and purchase a Pdf copy of the article to view it your self, heres another account and how a snap shot peice of the article would look like:
lion kills three tiger’s Source: Altoona Mirror, September 27. 1928 http://i1119.photobucket.com/albums/k625/Leofwin/lionvstigeraccount4.jpg
So since Bigcat82 has no reason of removing what I posted of lions killing tigers accounts via reliable sources, it is in terms vandalizing, so I would like a mod to place a block on his account if he persist in removing credible and reliable occaisons to have a bias subjective and pro-data topic. Golden Prime ( talk) 01:15, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
You see what I mean, I don't like wasting my time like that...you just called them false...how, wheres your tangibe proof they are false, just saying it is dosent make them false, they are all directed straight to its root source, tell me exactly how is his (Bigcat82) a good case and mine isint? You dident even check for any of his verifications, so stop lying, there are even previous people who undid his revision since they actually read its content, answer one question andy...just one...are there only two sub-speices of tigers?
NO! There are NINE! So how is whats in place already a good case? You shouldent even be replying if you arnt interested in improving anything on this subject, I don't even know why you're here, you say you want reliability, and yet you make up lies and subjective remarks and hide behind wiki rules of abusing authoritys where its not needed. Golden Prime ( talk) 02:30, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
lol you have nothing on me and are making up lies after lie andy, go report me, who cares, we both know you have nothing that was true...I'm waiting andy, it states here WIKIPEDIA'S OWN SOURCE! Tiger there are NINE SUBSPEICES OF TIGERS! I previously added a revision even before the one you undid as ignorant and faslely proclaimed as you were, you offered no proof, and yet the former revision I had mentioned had 2 BIOLOGIST (you can check my other contribs) state all the tiger averages, and the lion on average is heavier and taller, I'm trying to be as historically as accurate as possible, what are you doing? Being subjective, bias and hiding the truth and twisting facts?
You, are CONTRADICITING wikipedias own sources, there are more than 2 sub-species of tigers, yet you and flat out reverted to less reliable content...jesus christ talk about hypocrites, good case? You have NO CASE, you cant even exept the basic cases let alone you ignorantly trying to dis-prove of scholar/masters level'd people who you dident even know the concept between history and biology was supposed to be comprehended...yet again, making up things and being bias and subjective...why are you even here, to be a spaming bot?
The bottom line is you dident state why you revereted it to a less reliable one and yet all the accounts, everysingle one of them had a source, and you still reverted it out lol Golden Prime ( talk) 03:14, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Amiannoying is pretty well edited and comfortably less misleading compared to NNDB, but still what you think about it? Because I have found some errors in Amiannoying as well.
Thanks Noteswork ( talk) 13:31, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Seeking advice on the suitability of http://www.racingsportscars.com as a source, as used in the Vittorugo Mallucci article. The website is registered to a named individual, rather than an organisation, and I suspect the content is self-published and lacking any editorial oversight. Jaggee ( talk) 20:16, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
The conclusion I see is that the site is not reliable, but is nevertheless widely used. I guess if it is the only source of something, then that something isn't all that notable - and can be removed. If it just the only online source, of content that could be sourced elsewhere in paper publications, then we need to dig out those paper sources. Either way, is there any policy-compliant reason to allow this site to be kept as a source cited in any article? Jaggee ( talk) 09:43, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
Better late than never getting to this issue on my long list, dealing with two stalled talk page discussions:
Thoughts as to whether the source is RS for these uses? Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 00:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea if it is an RS or not, but I'm not sure the opinions of undergraduates are encyclopedic. For a 38 year old book of the significance claimed by the article, surely we can find reviews from more significant publications. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:52, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
@ Gamaliel: 's question, and a look at the talk page, reminded me that I got too busy to deal with opposition to including two WP:RS about Nobel Prize winner Freidrich Hayek's comments' on Block's book. Rather than start a separate thread, might as well ask here.
So does any uninvolved editor see a problem with using both those Hayek-related materials in both articles? Thanks. Carolmooredc ( Talkie-Talkie) 03:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hayek's comments are shown on p. xii of the Fleet Press original edition of the book. Presumably Hayek read the book before it was published. Fleet Press was a reputable publisher of non-fiction that was later absorbed into Macmillan, which is a reputable publisher of non-fiction. Therefore the comments are reliably sourced. Gray used the comments on p. xii as a source. He references the Fleet edition of the book, although he does not mention the page number. Gray's book is also rs, and was published by Routledge, an academic publisher. The fact that Hayek's comments also appear "on a promotional page for the book near the "checkout" button on Mises.org. bookstore", or the fact that the LvMI republished the book, does not mean that the comments published in the Fleet Press edition are no longer rs. TFD ( talk) 19:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek "endorsed" Block's book. [4] Hayek wrote in an introductory commentary in the book that looking through it "made me feel that I was once more exposed to the shock therapy by which, more than fifty years ago, the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it. A real understanding of economics demands that one disabuses oneself of many dear prejudices and illusions. Popular fallacies in economics frequently express themselves in unfounded prejudices against other occupations, and showing the falsity of these stereotypes you are doing a real services, although you will not make yourself more popular with the majority." [5]
John N. Gray writes that Friedrich Hayek "endorsed" Block's book. [6] In this prefatory comment Hayek observes that looking through the book made him feel that he was again "exposed to the shock therapy by which ... the late Ludwig von Mises converted me to a consistent free market position. … Some may find it too strong a medicine, but it will still do them good even if they hate it," explaining that an understanding of economics requires the rejection of illusions and prejudices, and that it was a real service to have demonstrated "the falsity of these stereotypes".' [7]
I think the fact that Gray mentions Hayek's endorsement is actually more significant than the "endorsement" itself. In the endorsement, which appears to be a solicited promotional statement, Hayek does not even say that he has read the book. He did however choose to lend his name to the promotion of it so I think that Gray's text and his characterization of Block's book as Mandevillean are good WP content. SPECIFICO talk 15:20, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
An editor pointed out on my talk page [25] about using http://www.thedrum.com/ for citations. I am not sure about the reliability of the site. Kindly, let us know. Thank you,-- Bisswajit 14:28, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
I've seen sites that were blacklisted before (like Exclaim! which I tried to use when it was blacklisted) become acceptable over time, so I don't doubt it could happen here. Nothing about this particular website strikes me as odd, and I wonder why it is not allowed.
Here's the link I want to use (nowiki because I will be prevented from posting if I allow it to link):
http://www.examiner.com/review/earthless-and-joy-bring-a-taste-of-san-diego-psych-rock-to-the-pacific-northwest
For the record, I hope to use it in Earthless discography (I had added a statement to the lead paragraph that I reverted because I was hoping to install a citation for it using this link later in the article). I was trying to point out how the band's live concert performances differ from their studio recordings (they don't play discrete songs, they melt songs into one another so that the concert as a whole is just one long song made of several and they don't stop playing until they've finished their set).
Before you ask: I believe this is relevant to the discussion of the reliability of sources because it appears that has had something to do with the site being blacklisted. I want to make sure this particular link is OK to use before I take it back to the spam whitelist and ask that this one be granted immunity to the overall embargo on the site itself. Does anyone see any reason why this link is not to be trusted? Can I use it to cite factual information? Lazy Bastard Guy 17:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
I have a problem with a few sources on the current Moors article as they're currently being misquoted (possibly libeled), one from an Afrocentrist author known for pseudohistory, and one by some obscure author that has no validity.
The sources are the following: Ceylon and the Hollanders, 1658-1796, by, Pieris, P. E. 1874-1959, The Story of the Moors in Spain By Stanley Lane-Poole, Arthur Gilman, and The Golden Age of the Moor by Ivan Van Sertima.
These sources are currently being used in the Moors article as I aforesaid.
In my opinion these sources should be replaced by reliable sources that support the material, and if that cannot be done, then the material should go with the source. ShawntheGod ( talk) 15:40, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
Are the awards portion of IMDB [39] part of the curated content that is considered reliable or is that part of the user generated stuff? that we do not use? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:04, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
Wikpedia is allowing an online blog named the Sky Valley Chronicle who refuses post who it's writers are. The Sky Valley Chroncile was also connected with an attack piece and threats made to my life via Facebook and Wikipedia attack piece ( Anne Block) which Wikipedia removed citing it as an attack piece.
Hey all, I'd like to get some community opinions about the following site: r4rating.com. I first noticed some edits at the movie Drishyam, where an editor attempted twice to include reviews from r4rating here and here. I reverted both of those contributions because the movie article already presents a number of glowing reviews, and two more from a questionable source didn't seem to improve the article.
The contributing editor has also penned a declined AfC of the site here and based on their edit history, they seem to be here to promote r4rating.com by inserting links and reviews into articles. A rough look at the site suggests that the oddly branded "4 rating for you R RATING" (or R4 rating by you RATING ???) might be attempting to aggregate viewer response, akin to RottenTomatoes audience ratings or IMDb's viewer ratings. Curious if the community has any thoughts about this site's suitability for inclusion in movie articles, since I don't notice a lot of consideration for the audience's feelings in objective articles. I attempted to communicate with the contributor, but they ignored me and re-inserted their content into the Drishyam article. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 07:22, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for the existence, location and coordinates of Paloorkavu (and, by extension, of any other stubby village articles I come across and feel inclined to upgrade)? IndiaMapia doesn't say much about itself, and I can't find it in the noticeboard archives. Pam D 11:40, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Source: www.allicinfacts.com
Article: Indigenous_peoples_of_the_Americas#European_colonization
Content: "Within a few years smallpox killed between 60% and 90% of the Inca population, with other waves of European diseases weakening them further."
Copyright information says: Natural Health Publications Limited.
Terms of use: [47]
-- Langus ( t) 00:03, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Did someone really think this would fly as a source? Really?
Collect (
talk)
The new article Skaramuca sounds like a copy of some of the typical Serbian nationalist forum posts - a glaring WP:COATRACK violation which focuses on a purported Serbian nature of a surname and people, who today by and large seem to be Croatian. Specifically, the whole innuendo depends on Jevto Dedijer's 1909 book. Can this source be considered reliable for claims such as these? Given the confusingly wide scope of the article, talking about people having the same surname over a period of centuries (?) up to the present day, this could even be considered a WP:BLP violation. -- Joy [shallot] ( talk) 21:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Can the alternate reality game site ARGNet be considered a reliable source? I found a couple of articles online that I might want to use in an article, but I am not sure about the reliability of the site? SciGal ( talk) 13:39, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an RFC which may be of interest to editors here Wikipedia_talk:Manual_of_Style/Trademarks#RFC_to_resolve_conflict_between_MOS:TM.2C_MOS:CT_WP:TITLETM_WP:RS_WP:COMMONNAME Gaijin42 ( talk) 16:06, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
ChrisGualtieri and I reached an impasse on Talk:David Gould (basketball)/GA1 over the use of a basketball coach's résumé as sourced from his agent. My understanding is that résumés can be used as sources for facts per this and this. Note that the résumé was not put out by the subject but by a firm that could face prosecution if it is found to be inaccurate. Any help would be appreciated. Hawkeye7 ( talk) 21:44, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
I just came across The Axis Air Forces:Flying in Support of the German Luftwaffe by Frank Joseph. ABC-CLIO describes him [48] as "professor of world archaeology with Japan's Savant Institute, and recipient of the Midwest Epigraphic Society's Victor Moseley Award. His published works include more than 20 books in as many foreign editions, such as Mussolini's War: Fascist Italy's Military Struggles from Africa and Western Europe to the Mediterranean and Soviet Union 1935–45." Impressive, right? At face value, certainly sounds like a reliable source if you don't question it. But leaving aside the fact that the Savant Institute only seems to be mentioned on the web in connection with Joseph, we know Joseph better as Frank Collin, ex-Nazi and writer of New Age and fringe archaeology material. It's actually disappoint to see such a well known publisher misrepresent an author in this way, but a warning to all of us not to take publisher's statements at face value. Dougweller ( talk) 13:08, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
I want to cite something from this report in the article Council on American–Islamic Relations, but another editor insists I can't, reverting me and another editor. Thanks in advance, Yambaram ( talk) 09:13, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I want to cite this page on the article Hebrew in order to write that there are 7 million native Hebrew speakers (the article currently uses a 1998 source which gives the ridiculous number of 5.3 million speakers, and a heated discussion on the talk page didn't produce any consensus about this). Thanks in advance, Yambaram ( talk) 08:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
While not the most ideal source, can someone comment if this Deadspin article is reliable for the opinions of two journalists who are skeptical that Dock Ellis threw a no hitter while on LSD? This story has been around for decades, and the opinion by these journos seems highly relevant and provides some balance to this claim. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
The Wikipedia entry on abstract (summary) states: "Consulting the abstract alone is inadequate for scholarship and may lead to inappropriate medical decisions. ... An abstract allows one to sift through copious amounts of papers for ones in which the researcher can have more confidence that they will be relevant to his or her research. Once papers are chosen based on the abstract, they must be read carefully to be evaluated for relevance. It is commonly surmised that one must not base reference citations on the abstract alone, but the entire merits of a paper."
That said, assuming that (in addition to the abstract) the complete article is available, should citations (or selected quotations) be made to the abstract? I have been under the impression that the article's text always takes dominance over the abstract, and that abstracts are not designed to be cited to. Please advise. -- Precision123 ( talk) 12:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Does wikipidia now require to publish entire page/books hereafter? That would be copyright violation. Which is why google books is only showing a snippet preview and not the entire page. So, what is that now wikipedians are expecting to do? As per the legal requirement one is not supposed to publish/quote more than the text that is actually required. If that snippet preview is not clarifying the context there is no way one can quote more than that or otherwise it is a legal violation. Curious wikipedians wanting to know the entire facts must buy the book. Wikipedians must also realize there are publishing houses and people making their living over writing books. Ganesh J. Acharya ( talk) 02:34, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
It is all a matter of degree. Nobody will argue that the best thing is to read a source in its entirety and extract information from there. If that is not plausible, one can use some part of the source with differing degrees of danger involved. A Google snippet is one of the most dangerous things, as it is a more or less random bit of text that lacks any selection process that would make it representative. (Once I cited a very clear statement in a snippet only to later discover that the next sentence, invisible in the snippet, said something like "but nobody believes that any more".) Abstracts written by authors (the usual thing for journal articles) are much better than that because they are intended by the authors to be valid summaries. If one wants to summarise a whole article, rather than to cite a detail, the author's abstract is often a very good start and even protects you from a charge that you are not reflecting the author's opinion correctly. To cite a detail from an article, the abstract might not be good enough since the author might have simplified it for brevity (journals often have word limits on abstracts). An abstract written by someone else is much less reliable than one written by the author, and I would not normally trust it unless the writer of the abstract is an expert in the field. Similarly for book reviews. Zero talk 13:11, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
15:37, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Easy peasy. Read the article. Read the abstract. If the abstract is a fair representation of what's in the article then go ahead and use it. If the abstract is not a fair representation of what's in the article then don't. The abstract is usually (though not always) the author's attempt at summary - far better to trust their choice of summary than an anonymous Wikipedia editor's (who likely has an axe to grind and doesn't have to go through a peer review process to grind it.) You're welcome. Dan Murphy ( talk) 23:26, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
[54]ABSTRACTS: Sometimes the index entry will include, following the basic citation, an Abstract. An abstract is simply a summary of the main points of the article. This is more common in a specialized subject index. The purpose is to allow the researcher an idea of the article's content before taking the time to go to the actual article. Abstracts often contain important and useful information but using the information in the abstract (perhaps 50-100 words) is in no way the same as reading and summarizing the actual article. Do not cite the Abstract as if it were the complete article!
[55] -- Precision123 ( talk) 23:59, 5 February 2014 (UTC)Never Cite Just the Abstract! Citing to just an article's abstract does not confirm for the reader that you have conducted a thorough or reliable review of the literature. If the full-text is not available, search the HOMER catalog by journal title to see if we have it. If USC does not have the journal, you can request it from our interlibrary loan and document delivery service.
I don't see how it makes sense, even where MEDRS applies to say that you can never cite an abstract. We ought to be able to apply some common sense, and it really isn't comparable to using a Google snippet. It might make a difference whether you are citing the abstract for findings or background information, and it's going to be important to consider the possibility that the abstract might lack some important context or caveat. For example, this abstract contains the information that there is no known cure for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. I fail to see what difference it makes whether I source that information to the abstract or the article. It's not as if I am likely to download the full article and find that the statement is false. Formerip ( talk) 00:09, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Here are some more citation guides and descriptions of abstracts:
Remember: Abstracts do not give you a complete picture. They may sometimes be inaccurate in the details, so you should not cite the abstract. If the abstract and the discussion differ, you should go with the information given in the introduction.
You should not cite an abstract, which is simply a condensed summary of the article written by the author to help researchers know if the information will be helpful.
Abstracts should not be cited unless the abstract is the only available reference to an important concept.
Abstracts cannot be cited as references.
-- Precision123 ( talk) 06:55, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Precision123 is thoroughly confused (and probably not alone in this) with the distinction between citation and quotation. Academic guidelines want you to cite the full paper; but that's we do too. But I see no problems with quoting (from) abstracts in general; they are part of the full paper. Sometimes it might be necessary to add context from the full paper, but it's rare that the abstract (which is written by the authors themselves) doesn't correctly summarize their own paper. In some areas of research, even the "full" paper might not have all the details, some of which might be relegated to a technical report. So it depends if you need those details or not...
Also, abstracts aren't usually written willy-nilly; the rule of thumb is that ten to 500 times more people will read your abstract than will read your full paper [60]; this isn't a great secret and is something you can read in any academic/science writing tutorial. So any researcher worth his salt will usually write a useful abstract (with that fact about readership in mind).
As for following to the letter the essay-writing advice pages addressed to college sophomores (at best), which say one must read the whole work before citing it, ask yourselves if some academic cites a several-hundred-pages book, say [61], (which has some 500 citations in GS or ACM DL), simply to say that "SPARK is a subset of Ada focused on safety-critical software development using formal methods [Barnes 2003]." is okay or not without him/her heaving read the whole 430 pages of the book (which doesn't even have a formal abstract, but you can probably equate the book's introduction with that). Because that's what an academic will do: cite the most authoritative (which usually means the most detailed) source on something, even when they mention it in one sentence and almost certainly haven't read the whole text (because they don't need to for what they are citing it for.)
By the way, the heading on top of this noticeboard discourages this kind of purely theoretical discussion as counterproductive. A concrete triplet of Source, [wiki] Article, and Content is what should be discussed here. Someone not using his real name ( talk) 04:21, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Most articles regarding Indian Railways quotes http://indiarailinfo.com/; http://erail.in/ and http://www.irfca.org as source. Though by far it may be accepted for map or creating route diagrams, but distance between any two railway stations or a length of a railway line largely differs with the Official website. Also the website is mostly with user generated content. So is the case of Indian Railways Fan Club ( Indian Railways Fan Club), most of the web pages are have contents user-generated and casting doubts over verifiability and reliability, since they are neither accurate (to the most) nor updated. -- βα£α( ᶀᶅᶖᵵᵶ) 16:15, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm writing here to check something for a new user, User:Kareem1790. He created a page for a new site called FolioWonk and has added the page as a source to various different articles. I've removed the sourcing since it's a new and unproven site, but I thought I'd ask here for confirmation. Here's one of the links added. The page does seem to have an editorial board, but I can't truly verify how much editing goes on and so on- you guys know the usual drill about verifying editorial staff and whatnot. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:23, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
Claims of Ghassanids being Hellenised backed by one unreliable source(source 3), and two misrepresented sources (sources 1 and 2):
that emigrated in the early 3rd century from the Southern Arabian Peninsula to the Levant region, where some merged with Greek-speaking Christians communities. [8] [9] [10]
Only the unreliable "Sufi Trails" source makes the claim that the Ghassanids were Hellenised. The other two sources never mention that. The editor failed to provide quotes/exact page numbers in the dedicated talk page section ( /info/en/?search=Talk:Ghassanids#Arabs.2FHellenisation). Article is currently protected due to edit warring (involving user Lazyfoxx who written the above). SaSH172 ( talk) 02:10, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Can http://www.aurangzeb.info/ can be used as a reliable source on wikipedia (it has the snaps of many of the original orders of a tyrant)?— Khabboos ( talk) 17:44, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
saudiaramcoworld.com
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Bowersock
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).