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 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | → | Archive 170 |
In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.
The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.
Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Wikipedia. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloist ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I should like to know if it is permissible to use this source - is interpretermag.com [2] a reliable source? An article therein, the massacre that wasnt has expressed doubts over the authenticity of photos and vids purportedly related to Adra massacre. thanks Sayerslle ( talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The following text was recently added to the archive of Talk:Dictionary of National Biography. I am moving it here:
[Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia?]
I find it a rather difficult resource to check for common folk like myself since it is a paid subscription publication. However, that is no reason not to allow it but in your reference section of Lucy Walter you have only one (1) reference and it is DNB via ODNB. Thus we are left with only one reference for this entire opinion. Thus I find it deficient, to say the least, that the public is only left with only the writing of DNB/ODNB as the "gospel" on the lady's bio. Certainly other historians on the subject, particularly those with directly opposing views, need expressing. The article in its present form is further weakened by the 2006 quote of Robert Clifton which contradicts the sole reference which is attributed to Robin Clifton. If these are two (2) different people this needs clarifying or if they are the same the names need to agree. I am familiar with the historian Robin Clifton's writings of the era but only as they compare the differences in William of Orange (King William of William and Mary) and the Duke of Monmouth's tactics which are irrelevant here. This is not to devalue or demean the reputation of Oxford. It is merely to question the wisdom of allowing others only one authority to be heard. As to copyright issues: Most modern use of copyrighted material, at least in US publications which Wikipedia reportedly uses, is that it is permitted if the copyrighted original source is also given. Obviously, one could get around this road block by leaving off credit to the copyrighted author, and merely checking and using his/her source. However, I feel it would be less than forthcoming to avoid giving credit to the copyrighted author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elirets ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 February 2014
Is this page at CollegeAtlas.org a reliable source to support the claim that Brigham Young University is the third-largest private university in the U.S.? That page clearly makes that claim but it's unclear where that information came from or what substantiates it. The "about" page of CollegeAtlas.org doesn't seem to tell us anything helpful about where the information came from other than saying that "CollegeAtlas.org relies on feedback from schools, education professionals and students to help keep content up to date and accurate." (It's clear to me that a lot of the information in the website is taken from the Department of Education as much of it is verbatim from College Navigator, including the pie charts and graphs. But it also appears that some of that information is out-of-date and some of the information comes from other sources. I suspect that some of the verbage in some of the descriptions was written by the college or university in question.)
I contend that this source isn't reliable for this claim because it's clearly an incorrect statement. A quick glance at our own article on this topic shows how implausible it is that an institution with only 35,000 students isn't going to be at or near the top of any national enrollment chart unless that chart has some very significant constraints or narrow criteria well beyond "private." To double-check this, I glanced at the 2012 enrollment data in IPEDS and it shows that BYU comes up sixth in 2012 Fall FTE enrollment behind Liberty (72,904), NYU (44,516), Western Governors (40,320), USC (39,958), and Excelsior (34,563) with BYU reporting 34,409.
Another editor fervently disagrees with this analysis and insists that the statement remain in the article because it's found in this allegedly reliable source. It's not clear to me if this source is reliable for anything but it is clear that this particular statement is erroneous and not one we should be repeating unless much better evidence can be provided. Your thoughts and opinions are most welcome. ElKevbo ( talk) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor keeps add this, http://bayimg.com/CAieLAafC as a source. I have told them it is not reliable but they won't take my word for it. Is that a reliable source for anything? GB fan 11:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear. Primary sources like that are not allowed for supporting claims about living people, whether they're considered to be from reliable sources or not. The claim must be removed until it can be sourced to a secondary source, as it is for the Boston University claim. (I see that the other link given, to the business website doesn't even mention Harvard at the moment.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the following webpages as sources:
My feeling is that they are good for supporting minor points in an article which also has proper reliable sources, but not as the main sources for an article. The websites don't appear to be news organisations per se, but they're serious sites which appear to be intended as news sources in their particular area.
Thanks. -- Chriswaterguy talk 03:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
1. Sources:
2. Article: Pamela Geller
3. Content: "Pamela Geller is right wing" -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Addedum to 1. Sources:
Is any of those sources specifically about Geller's general position on the political spectrum? I rather think they are all primarily about the Islam issue, and mention her en passant with regard to that single issue. Which is what I pointed out a few times already. And in many countries, support of Islam is clearly right wing. Cheers, but the term is useless here, and especially since none of your googled sources make any such general statements about Geller. Collect ( talk) 13:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This is still going on? I'm baffled. At this point, this isn't an issue of sources, it's an issue for mediation or Arbcom. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey I just noticed that there are
a lot of pages that are citing CNN's iReport as CNN itself. iReport is a CNN project where anybody can submit anything and it will produce a page under the CNN banner. The only indication that it's not CNN is a tag that says "Not vetted for CNN". Otherwise it is completely user-generated. Here's the
about page. "The stories here are not edited fact-checked or screened before they post."
There are some stories that CNN vets and approves, but it looks like a tiny minority. Here's an example of a "vetted" story
story. It's a woman's personal tribute to her own mother who really liked Shirley Temple. To give another example, consider this NY Art Dealer
Tina Kim (art dealer) who has a citation to CNN, but when you look at the
source, it's a press release submitted to the iReport page. Or look at just about any of the other
search results, I think you'll still see the issue. This looks like it might need a systemic solution, or at least a focussed cleanup, considering the number of pages it affects. What do you think?
__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I have provided three sources for the random reboot issue of the Nokia Lumia 1520 but FDMS4 ( talk) and Götz ( talk) keep saying all three source are not reliable. I would like a third party opinion.
This is the content:
The phone freezes and hangs randomly, like other Lumia phones. Resetting the phone is good DIY method to take care of this problem. Nokia is already investigating the issue.
These are the sources:
This article has had a "ref improve" tag since 2009. Many of the article's citations, if not coming from websites or newspapers, date from the 1960s-1980s. So I recently added four, now contested sources:
As discussed on the talk page here and here, editors Faustian and Львівське doubt Rudling's objectivity, on the basis of these website links (one coming from an academic, though not published in an academic journal): [12], [13], [14], [15].
Volunteer Marek adds that perhaps I shouldn't have added long quotes from the sources in "nb" format. I understand that, though the text explains the content added on what could be a contentious subject. Here is the diff for the sum of my additions so far. - Darouet ( talk) 16:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this list of neighborhoods from theeastsiderla.com a reliable source for which neighborhoods are part of the East side of Los Angeles sufficient to include all those neighborhoods in Eastside Los Angeles:
Angeleno Heights, Atwater Village, Boyle Heights, City Terrace, Cypress Park, Eagle Rock, East Hollywood, East Los Angeles, Echo Park, El Sereno, Elysian Heights, Elysian Valley, Garvanza, Glassell Park, Hermon, Highland Park, Historic Filipinotown, Lincoln Heights, Los Feliz, Montecito Heights, Monterey Hills, Mount Washington, Northeast L.A., Silver Lake, Solano Canyon, Victor Heights,
Their list contradicts the Los Angeles Times definition here at mappingLA and dozens of other reliable sources on the question. Furthermore, it strikes me that they're describing their coverage area rather than making actual reliable claims about which neighborhoods are on the East side. Thank you for your time.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 16:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor has been adding links on various Turkish-interest articles to a website called OMG! Turkey - The Turkish Celebrity Gossip & News, while in some cases [18] [19] deleting other sources. Is OMG! Turkey an acceptable source for Turkish show biz and celebrity information? (I will also post this inquiry at WT:TURKEY.)-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
In recently attempting to purchase a computer I went looking for one that met the specifications I desired. HP originally planned to create one and issued press releases. However, they never did. Someone prematurely wrote an article based on that press release implying that it existed, now a user, Indrek, has repeatedly reverted my edits to the zBook page claiming that the article with false information is a reliable source and therefore my accurate information should be removed. The article in question doesn't link to any of it's supposed sources, but I found a press release from HP here: [21] The entire article is written in present tense, but the section in question is written in future tense.
Source:
[22]
Article:
HP_ZBook
Diff:
[23]
Thanks, Matthewslaney ( talk
Display options include a touch-sensitive screen on the ZBook 14, 3200×1800 resolution on the ZBook 15 and an HP DreamColor IPS panel on the ZBook 17.
Matthewslaney, the problem is that one of the quirks of Wikipedia is that the project's goal is to compile noteworthy information as described in reliable sources, rather than to compile noteworthy information that is true. So we sometimes (or often, depending on the topic) encounter situations in which we know or strongly suspect something is true but we can't say it in a Wikipedia article because the majority of sources don't say it. In this case, we don't have any particular reason to disbelieve that you contacted HP and verified that they never produced the model(s) being discussed. But in the absence of reliable sources saying that the models were never produced, the article can't include a statement that the models were never produced. (please read the Wikipedia policy that forbids using original research WP:NOR; everything in Wikipedia must be based on published information, which rules out personal communications that have not been published) On the subject of the reliability of the sources you have questioned, I believe you are right to say that the sources are not reliable for the statement that "Display options include a touch-sensitive screen on the ZBook 14, 3200×1800 resolution on the ZBook 15." [24] The geek.com article appears to have been based on a press release for what at the time was described as a product that was expected to be available to the public in the near future. The Engadget article linked above has the same problem, it appears to be based entirely on a press release for a future product (future in terms of not yet having been made available to the public or physically examined by the article's author). Perhaps the best way to handle this situation would be to find hands-on review articles for this general class of computers and focus the description provided in the Wikipedia article on the features described in those review articles. Press releases in this sort of situation are only reliable to the point of saying something along the lines of "a press release said" or "it was described as xyz in a company press release". Dezastru ( talk) 19:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Display options include a touch-sensitive screen on the ZBook 14 and an HP DreamColor IPS panel on the ZBook 17. Additionally, a 3200×1800 resolution option has been announced for the ZBook 15.
New user:Jnordqvist appears to be CEO and chief editor of this site which appears to be blogish.
Articles:
-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 08:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-- I understand your concerns Loriendrew, although cannot help but feel like I'm being singled out, which may be the case as you are only being wary of newcomers - given the fact that your profile says your "duties" in this site involve page patrolling and minor fixing/repairs of established entries.
However, let me make something clear, I only want to enhance the reading experience for those who come across these articles - like I did - and feel they need more substance.
1. My impulse purchase edit was per an article that is one hundred percent based on a recent study titled “Environmental Disorder Leads to Self-Regulatory Failure,” published in the Journal of Consumer Research). I think the edit added interesting and relevant substance to a page which is riddled with outdated information.
2. My edit of the "Criticism of Wal-Mart" article was also based on an article which covered new research published in the British Journal of Criminology concerning crime rates associated with the number of Wal-Marts in US counties. Again, this is interesting and relevant substance for a reader.
I would like to make it clear to you and all other key members of the wiki community that those edits are based on "sourced research" which (in my opinion) adds value to the articles.
In a nutshell, the reason I joined is because I want to use my knowledge of certain topics to add quality content (backed with references) to this site (a great medium for people to learn). I am new here and I would like to contribute. I truly feel that my input (though it will not be substantial) will improve articles.
-- ☾Jnordqvist☽
--Understood. I would like to continue contributing to the site as I often come across articles that lack new research/findings. However, in order to avoid COI, I will (as pointed out) cite the original abstract or report.
Thank you for the slap on the wrist and clearing that up for me Loriendrew. -- ☾Jnordqvist☽
Hello. There's currently a discussion at Talk:Jack William Pithey about including a year of death based on this article from the Oxford DNB. User:Mewulwe argues that it cannot be used because the Oxford DNB sometimes takes information from Wikipedia and thus is not a reliable source in this instance, since at one point Pithey's DOD was included in Wikipedia without a reliable source. There is no evidence, however, that the article proposed to cite Pithey's death took anything from Wikipedia (in fact, it is dated for October 2005, long before the material was added to Wikipedia) and any assertion that it took the year of death from Wikipedia is, in my opinion, tantamount to original research unless evidence can be provided. Having said that, consensus is king, so I think that it is best if this issue is sorted out at RSN. Canadian Paul 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards yes, at least in this instance where the reviewer in question is one of the originators of the site, which has been around since 2007. The site in question is AV Maniacs, which previously went under the name DVD Maniacs. It's used on other pages on here under either name, but I wanted to get a second opinion on this since I'm not entirely familiar with this site (or just looked over it when I was looking for reviews). Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Link - [27]
I have checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and it is not mentioned anywhere. Can someone tell me if this is reliable or not since it holds news posts, reviews and so on. - SilentDan297 talk 16:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"Under The Gun reviewers are amateurs, so let's not use Under The Gun". That's reasonable.
At Talk:Puerto Rico#RfC:Can the existence of the PR status controversy be admitted to the article?, I propose the language, “While government sources list Puerto Rico as an "unincorporated" territory, it has also been referred to as "incorporated" into the United States during scholarly disputes over Puerto Rican status.”
I source the existence of a scholarly controversy over the status of Puerto Rico at Burnett and Marshall, Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p.15, 17.
Puerto Rico’s transition into “commonwealth” status in 1952 raised these questions in a debate that continues today. … Whether this means the island ceased to be an unincorporated territory… remain the sources of considerable disagreement. p.15
, and an element of the controversy “incorporated” at Lawson and Sloane, Boston College Law Review, p.1175 which is not currently reflected in the article.
… regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art. p.1175.
I am told here and in prior discussion that there is no controversy but my disruption and soapboxing, I am not being concise, there is no such controversy in Puerto Rican politics, it does not meet significance, and the Boston College Law Review is a self-published unreliable source. I am unsure how to procede. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
As with most "Law Review"s, it is a student publication, though competitive and highly supervised/edited. It also publishes articles by outside non-student legal experts. Which type of article/note is being referred to is important. See its description here [ [30]] Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 02:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Is being added to some BLPs - the problem I have is that it appears less sourced than the corresponding Wikipedia articles. In the case of Rick Scott it has his mom working for "J. C. Penny" and the like -- which makes me doubt that it is really a "reliable source" as required by Wikipedia. In addition, it is a wiki, though it says most articles are professionally written or reviewed. But whn such silly stuff is in it, and much has no references, I somehow think t fails WP:RS. It even has a place for politicians to "submit your bio to Ballotpedia" which makes me even more credulous.
Other views? Collect ( talk) 18:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Is wargs.com [32] a reliable source for saying "[Ron Paul's] paternal grandfather emigrated from Germany, as did his paternal grandmother's parents, while his mother was of three quarters German and one quarter Irish ancestry" in Ron Paul? Dezastru ( talk) 16:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
It is a mistaken belief that professor Moriarty's first name is James. In all references to "Professor Moriarty" never is a first name listed. The confusion is because on the first page of "The Final Problem" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Dr. Watson references some writings by Colonel James Moriarty the brother of professor Moriarty as shown below:
"My hand has been forced, however, by the recent letters in which Colonel James Moriarty defends the memory of his brother, and I have no choice but to lay the facts before the public exactly as they occurred."
Additional confusion is also due to the PBS/BBC production of "Sherlock" which also refers to professor Moriarty as "James" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.39.60 ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Articles such as Buddhism by country or List of religious populations have been constructed through misuse of sources and original research (for example combining statistics of different religions), in order to enormously inflate the number of Buddhists in the world.
1. Sources. The book or web page being used as the source.
a. Reference 1. Sutherland, A. The Man behind the music:(2008). There is one well-known and one lesser-known book by this name, but no evidence that this exists. No publisher information given.
b. Reference 4 & 9. Williams, S. (2001), "Cecil Jay Roberts: My Life, My Story, My Words", Johnson & J. Wood, Akana Press, Pitoria. I find no evidence of "Akana Press". "Pitoria" seems like a typo, at best.
c. References 5. and 8. Both of these articles were written by "QueStar Management", which appears to be Cecil Jay Roberts management company. It seems they should be treated as an
WP:SPS.
1) Campbell, Marjorie."Cecil Jay Roberts - a star is born!", Christian Today, London, 26 April 2010.
2) Travis, Maria. "Cecil Jay Roberts: 'Ceeing' in 2013", Christian Today, London, 17 September 2013.
2. Article.
Cecil Jay Roberts. Also see
Talk:Cecil_Jay_Roberts#Reliable_sources_needed
3. Content.
Extended content
|
---|
a. Reference 1. is used extensively in the article. Without this single reference, roughly 1/2 of the article would be unreferenced:
b. References 4 & 9
2) Reference 9 (the author of the article just added this in response to a "citation needed tag"
[38], then removing the tag
[39]. It seems unlikely that a 2001 book would provide reference for a 2014 TV show which is otherwise not listed as being broadcast.
c. References 5. and 8 are also used extensively in the article, providing citations for most of the remaining text.
1) Reference 8.
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSperrazza ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 February 2014
The Tor (anonymity network) receives some of its funding from government sources. This was already covered in the article. WhisperToMe added a September Washington Post 'The Switch' blog post which featured quotes from two Tor representatives explaining the context for the federal funds it receives and denying that it grants any direct backdoor access.
A user with a dynamic IP (most recently on the talk page as 178.8.155.17) reverted ( r1 r2 r3). A discussion formed on the talk page, so I self-reverted to remove the text again until we could figure it out given a cited BLP issue.
There's a thread on the talk page on this, but to summarize: The IP's argument seems to be that the source is not reliable (hence using this noticeboard) and should not be included because of its frame of "should we trust it?" He/she says the article is speculating about problems with Tor and accusing the Tor representatives of lying. I see no such thing. We already mention the funding from the government. A question of what that funding means for a project about privacy should be assumed. Asking it, and even being skeptical about it, is just journalism.
Two quotes from Tor representatives from a Washington Post blog. If that's all that's taken from it, I don't think it matters even if the author was looking for dirt. To me this is an obvious one, but as nobody else has weighed in on the talk page, I come here. --— Rhododendrites talk | 15:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tor_.28anonymity_network.29. -- NeilN talk to me 13:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This concerns the use of the following study ( here or here) on the article Haaretz.
A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz was "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" than the Palestinian side.
A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians.
No similar conclusion appears in the article's conclusion section. The closest finding is the quote from page 117 used in Option 1.
Primary sources: It seems clear that this is a primary source. See WP:PSTS; WP:USINGPRIMARY ("The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source.") "Primary sources allow researchers to get as close as possible to original ideas, events and empirical studies as possible. Such sources include publication of the results of empirical observations or studies. Examples include: Data sets, technical reports, experimental research results." On the other hand, "scholarly articles that don't present new experimental research results" are secondary. [40] "Primary source includes journal articles of original research [exactly what this is], conference papers, dissertations, technical reports, and patents." [41]
Different language: Though similar, there is subtle difference in language and meaning between the two options. Given that this is a primary source, WP:PSTS tells us to exercise special care with primary sources to ensure its conclusions are not misinterpreted or over-interpreted by readers: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." For that reason (and advice provided on WP:QUOTE), Option 1 seems like the most reliable representation of the finding in the primary source. -- Precision123 ( talk) 02:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FFS -- this source has already been discussed, and Precision123 didn't get the answer he/she wanted. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Viser's article isn't a primary source: it's an evaluation of content published by the New York Times and Haaretz, and in this case the content from those newspapers is the primary literature (those articles themselves include interviews, etc. as primary sources, and commentary). Just because it's a secondary source doesn't mean that Viser's opinions need by accepted without qualification by Wikipedia, of course. - Darouet ( talk) 18:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I am a little bit lost. This is a secondary source. This is published work providing different analysis of primary materials (articles from Ha'aretz and NYT). I cannot answer for the quality of this.
Anyway, I have at home a tertiary source about the same topic (bias in media coverage of the I-P conflict and in particular in Newspayer): Jérôme Bourdon, Le récit impossible : le conflit israélo-palestinien et les médias, de boeck. His conclusions are nevertheless at the opposite.
Pluto2012 (
talk) 08:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This is becoming Banal at this point. The argument of that talk page is slipping over here. Is it a reliable source? Is it a primary or secondary source? It seems to me those are the only questions that should be asked here. Anything beyond that you should be left to that talk page.
Pluto it would be great if you would share that source if you have the time. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 09:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an academic source. In the natural sciences individual papers are regarded as primary sources, but in the social sciences that isn't the case. Therefore treat as a reliable secondary source. It would be prudent to attribute. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
AllthePigs Theatre Company ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this an appropriate reference for AllthePigs aims to support the Equity Fringe Theatre Agreement and pay their actors and creative teams at least minimum wage in the article? 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 21:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=historysubmit&diff=596034615&oldid=596033920
Dismisses the Washington Times and the Global Times. Are these really so unreliable that we should scrub them from WP? Hcobb ( talk) 16:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
So is this a specific failure of the WT, or are they uncovering PRC censorship? Hcobb ( talk) 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Page: 2014 Venezuelan protests ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There has been some editwarring going on over there that largely seems grounded in multiple ongoing RS disputes (with some contradictions between contested sources and primary sources thrown in the mix for extra fun). Multiple eyes needed. Suggest people who can read spanish, understand Latin American media issues and hopefully don't have political axes to grind on either side. I have my own biases in this matter and am largely recusing myself from editing as I'm not certain I could keep my own POV entirely out of it but I recognize that problematic current events need many eyes and figure I can help this way. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Are
reliable sources for presenting Kill Dil and Finding Fanny Fernandes as films of 2014 in this manner
Year | Film | Role | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
2014 | Finding Fanny Fernandes | TBA | Cameo appearance [1] [2] |
2014 | Kill Dil | TBA | Filming |
or is it a more appropriate range of their reliability per WP:CRYSTAL's " Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. " and "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims" and WP:NFF and WP:V to present the content as
Year | Film | Role | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Scheduled for 2014 | Finding Fanny Fernandes | TBA | Cameo appearance [3] [4] |
Scheduled for 2014 | Kill Dil | TBA | Filming |
References
Additional discussion (and personal attacks) can be seen Talk:Ranveer_Singh#Kill_Dil -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the website here [47] is a self-published source ineligible to be used in the Alger Hiss article.
My opinion is supported by a 2001 news report about the site which says:
There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article.
Right now the website's author is being used to rebut a legitimate scholarly source, particularly in this paragraph:
Historian Jeff Kisseloff questions Haynes and Klehr's conclusion that Vassiliev's notes support Hede Massing's story about talking to Hiss at a party in 1935 about recruiting their mutual friend and host Noel Field into the Communist underground. According to Kisseloff, "all that the files Vassiliev saw really indicate is that she was telling yet another version of her story in the 1930s. Haynes and Klehr never consider that, as an agent in Washington, D.C., who was having little success in the tasks assigned to her, she may have felt pressure back then to make up a few triumphs to reassure her superiors."[115] Kisseloff also disputes Haynes and Klehr's linking of Hiss with former Treasury Department official Harold Glasser, whom they allege was a Soviet agent.[116] Finally, Kisseloff states that some of the evidence compiled by Haynes and Klehr actually tends to exonerate rather than convict Hiss. For example, their book cites a KGB report from 1938 in which Iskhak Akhmerov, New York station chief, writes, "I don't know for sure who Hiss is connected with."[117]
CJK ( talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
TFD is also a party to this dispute and has been for some time.
His statement about Haynes and Klehr is incorrect. Haynes and Klehr do not "spend an entire chapter rebutting the website and its authors" in any of their books.
Also, I would like to note that my complaint here is restricted to Kisseloff, the website manager, and not necessarily other authors on the website. Per WP:SPS Kisseloff is not an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
CJK ( talk) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You admit it is "a partisan site run by a former member or the legal defense team of the article's subject" but still think it is okay for inclusion? The reader as of now is completely mislead into believing that it is scholarly material on par with Haynes and Klehrs' book.
And actually, it isn't run by a member of Hiss's legal team. It is run by Hiss's son and a freelance journalist with a oral history degree.
CJK ( talk) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the opinions expressed in the website should be included, or to what extent they should be mentioned, is a matter of neutrality, which is a different policy. But there is no question that they are a reliable source for the authors' opinions. Whether or not it is reliable for the facts about the case is another issue. You have presented evidence it is not, although other editors have challenged you on that. But since it is not used as a source of facts, and no one has suggested that it be used as one, that issue is moot. This is really an issue of weight, hence you picked the wrong notice board. TFD ( talk) 18:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
AndytheGrump was also a party to this dispute.
He is expressing his "opinion" about the facts of the case. The authors "opinion" about an issue unrelated to their personal lives is only of note if it complies with WP:SPS provisions. Any other assessment would make an abject mockery of said provisions. Anyone could create a website declaring the moon landings were a hoax and, according to you, have it posted in Wikipedia articles as their "opinion".
18:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding WP:SPS there is no "significance" loophole. You are just making things up.
And even so, the article and section is about academic discussion of Alger Hiss, not Alger Hiss conspiracy theories.
19:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
His "opinion" is about the facts of the case, not about himself personally. As such, it falls under a straightforward WP:SPS violation. There is no evidence you can violate WP:SPS so long as other people have mentioned the site in question.
20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This noticeboard really works best when the discussion focuses on specific content questions. Please see the request box near the top of the page that says, "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available." I suspect one of the reasons this discussion is dragging on is that the exact statement(s) proposed for inclusion in the Wikipedia article has not been made clear here. Dezastru ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes.... Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
Dezastru ( talk) 20:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I already did above, you apparently overlooked it.
Historian Jeff Kisseloff questions Haynes and Klehr's conclusion that Vassiliev's notes support Hede Massing's story about talking to Hiss at a party in 1935 about recruiting their mutual friend and host Noel Field into the Communist underground. According to Kisseloff, "all that the files Vassiliev saw really indicate is that she was telling yet another version of her story in the 1930s. Haynes and Klehr never consider that, as an agent in Washington, D.C., who was having little success in the tasks assigned to her, she may have felt pressure back then to make up a few triumphs to reassure her superiors."[115] Kisseloff also disputes Haynes and Klehr's linking of Hiss with former Treasury Department official Harold Glasser, whom they allege was a Soviet agent.[116] Finally, Kisseloff states that some of the evidence compiled by Haynes and Klehr actually tends to exonerate rather than convict Hiss. For example, their book cites a KGB report from 1938 in which Iskhak Akhmerov, New York station chief, writes, "I don't know for sure who Hiss is connected with."[117]
CJK ( talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
For that passage, which begins with "Historian Jeff Kisseloff questions Haynes and Klehr's conclusion," the actual source is a book review by Jeff Kisseloff that is published on a website of which Kisseloff is also the managing editor. I believe the following are relevant points from the guideline on identifying reliable sources:
Questionable Sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.... Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject
Now, examining the book review in terms of these considerations:
Kisseloff does not make claims in the review about himself, such as when and where he was born, what city he lives in, how many children he has, or for whom he voted in the most recent election. Those are the sorts of claims about oneself that the Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves guideline is meant to provide an exception for. Instead, Kisseloff is making scholarly claims that are contentious and that all involve people and events that are not related directly to himself.
For these reasons, the Kisseloff review does NOT meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria for the passage in contention.
Dezastru (
talk) 03:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Kisselhoff is a professional journalist who contributes to The Nation, where he is archivist, and has a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University. He has written five books, three of which were on oral history:
All of these are reputable publishers and one is the academic press. The website is sponsored by The Nation Institute and hosted by New York University. It has been extensively mentioned by Hiss scholars and includes articles by academics.
All of that together would make the source reliable for facts. However, the source is only used as a primary source for the opinons expressed on the website, which have been established in other reliable sources to be significant to the discussion.
TFD ( talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to remove some sources based on my understanding they were unreliable. Are there any opinions on whether I was too hasty? They've been re-inserted into the text if I was.
The first source is a now-deadlinked self-published site. It's used for over a dozen claims throughout. I attempted to remove the citation while leaving the material.
I also tried to take this citation out which was cited to www.u-s-history.com, which is identical text to this response on Yahoo questions. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I am interested in other opinions about the actual reliability of the source: www.falklands.info Is it wrong to question its reliability here? Is it reliable in way I'm not seeing? Is there a fresh pair of eyes that can evaluate this? __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
astro.com ( links) is used as a source in quite a number of articles. It is a site run by believers in astrology, and many of the links have the magic word "wiki" in the URL. I suspect this might not be wholly reliable... Guy ( Help!) 09:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com website is the work of the official Larry Norman biographer. http://www.failedangle.com now redirects to this site. Either one or both have been used to support statements on various articles. It appears to be a self-published site, but it has material that was provided to the site owner from the subject which may never be published elsewhere. One editor stated that if "the website can be confirmed to be associated with the Norman family/estate, that alone makes the website notable enough for inclusion", however I've never known an association like this to change the RS of a particular site.
Is the site reliable?
There is an ongoing discussion on the linked article's talk page about its use as well but in the specific context of the article, or at least that's how the discussion statred. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Startropic1 ( talk) 00:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The primary issue is WP:UNDUE -- the documentary should not be given undue weight, nor should problematic sources be used. Collect ( talk) 14:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source permit the use of these websites for rebuttals anway? We've already established that they're direct rebuttals from the subject's estate. Startropic1 ( talk) 18:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
From my reading it seems that consensus is the site(s) is (are) not RSes. If the credentials of the site's creator can be verified, individual articles may be used, but only with care. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a self-published blog hosted on Blogspot, which normally makes me think "ewww" but it is written by an industry analyst: David Raab of Raab Associates. It appears to be a one-man analyst firm that specializes in B2B marketing automation. I used the source a couple times on the article on Act-On, a B2B marketing automation vendor, regarding the version history of the software and a recent user-count. I also cited the firm's actual analyst report for the Reception section.
I could see editors saying it is an ideal specialist/expert source, or saying that it is a junk self-published, blog. Is it reliable enough for what it is used for now? Can I use it more to expand the Version history section?
I have a COI.
http://customerexperiencematrix.blogspot.com/
CorporateM ( Talk) 19:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this forum, of how to describe/qualify Nugent's comments about Obama calling him a "Subhuman mongrel" and Chimpanzee" Talk:Ted_Nugent#Obama_Comments_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
On Malcolm_B._Frost ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), extensive detail is referenced to this 'biography' on a US Military website.
To what extent is that considered a 'reliable source'? How much information is it appropriate to take from that source? Although it seems to be 'official', the tone of the text on the website doesn't seem authoritative or professional, and I wonder if it is considered a PRIMARY source in this case?
My own opinion is it's primary, and should therefore only be used to support very basic simple facts (such as he is "from Torrance, California"), and not for claims about his career and other details, unless those are supported by an appropriate independent reference (such as coverage in a newspaper).
I also think that a lot of "operational details" that are currently included ( [55]) don't belong in the BLP, but perhaps could be used in the articles about the units he was with.
I am hesitant to make changes myself right now, as an administrator has told me to 'Buzz off' - and that he knows better [56] ; hence seeking advice here, particularly about the sourcing. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
viz
|
---|
"include the Bronze Star medal (second award), Meritorious Service Medal (sixth award), Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal (sixth award, one for Valor), Army Achievement Medal (second award), National Defense Service Medal with bronze star, Armed Forces Expeditionary and Service Medals, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary and Service Medals, Humanitarian Service Medal, NATO Medal, the Ranger Tab, Senior Parachutist Badge, Combat Infantryman's Badge, Expert Infantryman's Badge, Meritorious Unit Citation, Superior Unit Award, and the Department of the Army Staff Identification Badge. " |
It seems to me that the army.mil bio is reliable for all the factual statements cited to it in the article. If anything, we should wonder about what an official army bio leaves out rather than what it includes. I think this is a clearcut application of WP:ABOUTSELF.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Alf, that's an essay though, not a policy or guideline. But I take your point; an AfD would probably fail - which is unfortunate, because I think that is the core of the problem. There's no policy or guideline to support a single-source SPS BLP, yet it's very hard to get any actually deleted because people refer to essays that have failed to get consensus as policy, and disregard N.
I'm not sure what (if anything) I should do now; there's mixed opinions above. Should the medals and awards be removed from it, as non-neutral self-published, or not? 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 11:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Baekje currently cites this author in three places, and two of the external links were to his website until a moment ago. A whole bunch of other articles cite him as well. [57] [58]d I get the impression he holds the (fringe) view that immigration to Japan from the Korean peninsula was on an absolute scale, and that they "created" Japanese culture. Admittedly I get this impression primarily from the title of the book, the statements it is being used to back up in the Wikipedia article, and this blog. But the latter also tells me that while he is ( or was?) a professor in a university, his field is economics, not ancient history. His website also lists a large number of articles he has published through reputable academic publishers, but all of them are on economics and trade in modern Korea. Additionally, searching for the name of his publisher brought up apparently no official website, despite more than 4,000 hits. [59] Searching again for his publisher without his name brought up 135 hits. [60] Does it seem to anyone else like we are dealing with a self-publisher who goes through universities and scholarly journals when he can and through his own small publishing house when he can't? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Is silentlambs.org a reliable source for use in the article Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. I was reverted when removing such a source, as another user claimed that since it already was used in the article, it was usable [69].
It is used for support to the following claims (the reverted one listed first): "DNA evidence, medical reports, or information from forensic experts or police that proves sexual abuse is also accepted as a valid "second witness", however critics argue that, without mandatory reporting for all accusations of abuse regardless of the local laws, such evidence could remain undetected." (The claim does have a counterclaim, as JW officials have claimed they always report such cases to the authorities in areas where this is mandatory.)
It is also used for the following claims/statements: "Critics claim that in many cases, members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been prevented from reporting child molestation to civil authorities" and "The Watch Tower Society maintains its existing policy, without an explicit requirement for elders to report all child abuse cases where such is not required by law."
The website is also added in "External links". Grrahnbahr ( talk) 13:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC) \
I have requested comments from others at
/info/en/?search=Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Request_for_comments because
AcidSnow has blanked the '2005 unrest in Nowshera' section in the
Persecution of Hindus article (one can see that at
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=596664536&oldid=596650658), but I believe it was wrong to do so, as the references clearly say so (the references used were:
"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". dawn.com. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 18 February 2014.,
"PCHR condemns the burning of Hindu Temple in Nowshera". Pak Tribune. Pak Tribune. July 01, 2005. Retrieved 18 February 2014. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) and
US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report 2006). The mob killed many Hindus in and around the temple. Church/temple destruction is also a form of 'persecution'. Thanks!—
Khabboos (
talk) 05:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The Huffington Post is notorious for fabrication, particularly in politics. They have often been criticized for their liberal bias and skewing. Essentially, they are a liberal equivalent of FOX News.
XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 18:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The OP's assertion is not receiving any real support here, and I'll add my voice to the opposition. There's little prospect here of a blanket ban on HuffPo. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
We cannot put a blanket ban on Huffington Post. There is too much high quality news published there. Binksternet ( talk) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Every source should be examined in context. Paid professional staffers doing political journalism? Reliable source. Celebrity blogger? Alternative medicine stories? Maybe not so much. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the clear consensus that this source is likely reliable in some instances and not reliable in others, like nearly every other source. XXSNUGGUMSXX, I respectfully suggest you move on unless you have new, significant evidence. ElKevbo ( talk) 00:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
How about these?:
XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 01:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the following?:
XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 02:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This university appears not to exist. It does have a website, allows emails to be sent to different departments, and has a couple phone numbers to contact the university. However, after several emails were sent during a weeks time none of the emails were ever responded to. I did call the United States phone number listed and it is a boggus number. The university is not identified when you call, only a machine answers and you are not able to leave a message. I have requested accreditation informations several times and no one responds. I can't find anyone who works at this university.
Please add this university to your list of universities that are not accreditated.
thanks
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 163 | Archive 164 | Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | → | Archive 170 |
In 2011, there was a discussion whether Astro-Databank (ADB) was a reliable source, see here. I want to clarify (as an editor of ADB), that the project claims reliability for the birth data section, i.e. birth date, birth time and location. Each entry is rated with the Rodden Rating system, and each entry contains precise source notes naming the source of the birth data information. Many entries carry the AA rating, which means that an original birth record or birth certificate was either in the hands of the editor, or quoted by another data collector of high reputation.
The astrological charts shown in ADB are reliably computed.
Other information found on an ADB page, for example biography text and category classifications reflects the personal knowledge and opinion of the respective author/editor. For newer entries, biography information is often copied from Wikipedia. These parts of ADB claim no special reliability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aloist ( talk • contribs) 14:10, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
I should like to know if it is permissible to use this source - is interpretermag.com [2] a reliable source? An article therein, the massacre that wasnt has expressed doubts over the authenticity of photos and vids purportedly related to Adra massacre. thanks Sayerslle ( talk) 21:53, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
The following text was recently added to the archive of Talk:Dictionary of National Biography. I am moving it here:
[Is the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography a valid reference on Wikipedia?]
I find it a rather difficult resource to check for common folk like myself since it is a paid subscription publication. However, that is no reason not to allow it but in your reference section of Lucy Walter you have only one (1) reference and it is DNB via ODNB. Thus we are left with only one reference for this entire opinion. Thus I find it deficient, to say the least, that the public is only left with only the writing of DNB/ODNB as the "gospel" on the lady's bio. Certainly other historians on the subject, particularly those with directly opposing views, need expressing. The article in its present form is further weakened by the 2006 quote of Robert Clifton which contradicts the sole reference which is attributed to Robin Clifton. If these are two (2) different people this needs clarifying or if they are the same the names need to agree. I am familiar with the historian Robin Clifton's writings of the era but only as they compare the differences in William of Orange (King William of William and Mary) and the Duke of Monmouth's tactics which are irrelevant here. This is not to devalue or demean the reputation of Oxford. It is merely to question the wisdom of allowing others only one authority to be heard. As to copyright issues: Most modern use of copyrighted material, at least in US publications which Wikipedia reportedly uses, is that it is permitted if the copyrighted original source is also given. Obviously, one could get around this road block by leaving off credit to the copyrighted author, and merely checking and using his/her source. However, I feel it would be less than forthcoming to avoid giving credit to the copyrighted author.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Elirets ( talk • contribs) 23:31, 1 February 2014
Is this page at CollegeAtlas.org a reliable source to support the claim that Brigham Young University is the third-largest private university in the U.S.? That page clearly makes that claim but it's unclear where that information came from or what substantiates it. The "about" page of CollegeAtlas.org doesn't seem to tell us anything helpful about where the information came from other than saying that "CollegeAtlas.org relies on feedback from schools, education professionals and students to help keep content up to date and accurate." (It's clear to me that a lot of the information in the website is taken from the Department of Education as much of it is verbatim from College Navigator, including the pie charts and graphs. But it also appears that some of that information is out-of-date and some of the information comes from other sources. I suspect that some of the verbage in some of the descriptions was written by the college or university in question.)
I contend that this source isn't reliable for this claim because it's clearly an incorrect statement. A quick glance at our own article on this topic shows how implausible it is that an institution with only 35,000 students isn't going to be at or near the top of any national enrollment chart unless that chart has some very significant constraints or narrow criteria well beyond "private." To double-check this, I glanced at the 2012 enrollment data in IPEDS and it shows that BYU comes up sixth in 2012 Fall FTE enrollment behind Liberty (72,904), NYU (44,516), Western Governors (40,320), USC (39,958), and Excelsior (34,563) with BYU reporting 34,409.
Another editor fervently disagrees with this analysis and insists that the statement remain in the article because it's found in this allegedly reliable source. It's not clear to me if this source is reliable for anything but it is clear that this particular statement is erroneous and not one we should be repeating unless much better evidence can be provided. Your thoughts and opinions are most welcome. ElKevbo ( talk) 04:13, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor keeps add this, http://bayimg.com/CAieLAafC as a source. I have told them it is not reliable but they won't take my word for it. Is that a reliable source for anything? GB fan 11:55, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
WP:BLPPRIMARY is clear. Primary sources like that are not allowed for supporting claims about living people, whether they're considered to be from reliable sources or not. The claim must be removed until it can be sourced to a secondary source, as it is for the Boston University claim. (I see that the other link given, to the business website doesn't even mention Harvard at the moment.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering about the following webpages as sources:
My feeling is that they are good for supporting minor points in an article which also has proper reliable sources, but not as the main sources for an article. The websites don't appear to be news organisations per se, but they're serious sites which appear to be intended as news sources in their particular area.
Thanks. -- Chriswaterguy talk 03:08, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
1. Sources:
2. Article: Pamela Geller
3. Content: "Pamela Geller is right wing" -- Atethnekos ( Discussion, Contributions) 01:01, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Addedum to 1. Sources:
Is any of those sources specifically about Geller's general position on the political spectrum? I rather think they are all primarily about the Islam issue, and mention her en passant with regard to that single issue. Which is what I pointed out a few times already. And in many countries, support of Islam is clearly right wing. Cheers, but the term is useless here, and especially since none of your googled sources make any such general statements about Geller. Collect ( talk) 13:41, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
This is still going on? I'm baffled. At this point, this isn't an issue of sources, it's an issue for mediation or Arbcom. Gamaliel ( talk) 04:56, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
Hey I just noticed that there are
a lot of pages that are citing CNN's iReport as CNN itself. iReport is a CNN project where anybody can submit anything and it will produce a page under the CNN banner. The only indication that it's not CNN is a tag that says "Not vetted for CNN". Otherwise it is completely user-generated. Here's the
about page. "The stories here are not edited fact-checked or screened before they post."
There are some stories that CNN vets and approves, but it looks like a tiny minority. Here's an example of a "vetted" story
story. It's a woman's personal tribute to her own mother who really liked Shirley Temple. To give another example, consider this NY Art Dealer
Tina Kim (art dealer) who has a citation to CNN, but when you look at the
source, it's a press release submitted to the iReport page. Or look at just about any of the other
search results, I think you'll still see the issue. This looks like it might need a systemic solution, or at least a focussed cleanup, considering the number of pages it affects. What do you think?
__ E L A Q U E A T E 02:17, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
I have provided three sources for the random reboot issue of the Nokia Lumia 1520 but FDMS4 ( talk) and Götz ( talk) keep saying all three source are not reliable. I would like a third party opinion.
This is the content:
The phone freezes and hangs randomly, like other Lumia phones. Resetting the phone is good DIY method to take care of this problem. Nokia is already investigating the issue.
These are the sources:
This article has had a "ref improve" tag since 2009. Many of the article's citations, if not coming from websites or newspapers, date from the 1960s-1980s. So I recently added four, now contested sources:
As discussed on the talk page here and here, editors Faustian and Львівське doubt Rudling's objectivity, on the basis of these website links (one coming from an academic, though not published in an academic journal): [12], [13], [14], [15].
Volunteer Marek adds that perhaps I shouldn't have added long quotes from the sources in "nb" format. I understand that, though the text explains the content added on what could be a contentious subject. Here is the diff for the sum of my additions so far. - Darouet ( talk) 16:57, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
Is this list of neighborhoods from theeastsiderla.com a reliable source for which neighborhoods are part of the East side of Los Angeles sufficient to include all those neighborhoods in Eastside Los Angeles:
Angeleno Heights, Atwater Village, Boyle Heights, City Terrace, Cypress Park, Eagle Rock, East Hollywood, East Los Angeles, Echo Park, El Sereno, Elysian Heights, Elysian Valley, Garvanza, Glassell Park, Hermon, Highland Park, Historic Filipinotown, Lincoln Heights, Los Feliz, Montecito Heights, Monterey Hills, Mount Washington, Northeast L.A., Silver Lake, Solano Canyon, Victor Heights,
Their list contradicts the Los Angeles Times definition here at mappingLA and dozens of other reliable sources on the question. Furthermore, it strikes me that they're describing their coverage area rather than making actual reliable claims about which neighborhoods are on the East side. Thank you for your time.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 16:40, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
An editor has been adding links on various Turkish-interest articles to a website called OMG! Turkey - The Turkish Celebrity Gossip & News, while in some cases [18] [19] deleting other sources. Is OMG! Turkey an acceptable source for Turkish show biz and celebrity information? (I will also post this inquiry at WT:TURKEY.)-- Arxiloxos ( talk) 02:34, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Hello,
In recently attempting to purchase a computer I went looking for one that met the specifications I desired. HP originally planned to create one and issued press releases. However, they never did. Someone prematurely wrote an article based on that press release implying that it existed, now a user, Indrek, has repeatedly reverted my edits to the zBook page claiming that the article with false information is a reliable source and therefore my accurate information should be removed. The article in question doesn't link to any of it's supposed sources, but I found a press release from HP here: [21] The entire article is written in present tense, but the section in question is written in future tense.
Source:
[22]
Article:
HP_ZBook
Diff:
[23]
Thanks, Matthewslaney ( talk
Display options include a touch-sensitive screen on the ZBook 14, 3200×1800 resolution on the ZBook 15 and an HP DreamColor IPS panel on the ZBook 17.
Matthewslaney, the problem is that one of the quirks of Wikipedia is that the project's goal is to compile noteworthy information as described in reliable sources, rather than to compile noteworthy information that is true. So we sometimes (or often, depending on the topic) encounter situations in which we know or strongly suspect something is true but we can't say it in a Wikipedia article because the majority of sources don't say it. In this case, we don't have any particular reason to disbelieve that you contacted HP and verified that they never produced the model(s) being discussed. But in the absence of reliable sources saying that the models were never produced, the article can't include a statement that the models were never produced. (please read the Wikipedia policy that forbids using original research WP:NOR; everything in Wikipedia must be based on published information, which rules out personal communications that have not been published) On the subject of the reliability of the sources you have questioned, I believe you are right to say that the sources are not reliable for the statement that "Display options include a touch-sensitive screen on the ZBook 14, 3200×1800 resolution on the ZBook 15." [24] The geek.com article appears to have been based on a press release for what at the time was described as a product that was expected to be available to the public in the near future. The Engadget article linked above has the same problem, it appears to be based entirely on a press release for a future product (future in terms of not yet having been made available to the public or physically examined by the article's author). Perhaps the best way to handle this situation would be to find hands-on review articles for this general class of computers and focus the description provided in the Wikipedia article on the features described in those review articles. Press releases in this sort of situation are only reliable to the point of saying something along the lines of "a press release said" or "it was described as xyz in a company press release". Dezastru ( talk) 19:45, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Display options include a touch-sensitive screen on the ZBook 14 and an HP DreamColor IPS panel on the ZBook 17. Additionally, a 3200×1800 resolution option has been announced for the ZBook 15.
New user:Jnordqvist appears to be CEO and chief editor of this site which appears to be blogish.
Articles:
-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(talk) 08:59, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
-- I understand your concerns Loriendrew, although cannot help but feel like I'm being singled out, which may be the case as you are only being wary of newcomers - given the fact that your profile says your "duties" in this site involve page patrolling and minor fixing/repairs of established entries.
However, let me make something clear, I only want to enhance the reading experience for those who come across these articles - like I did - and feel they need more substance.
1. My impulse purchase edit was per an article that is one hundred percent based on a recent study titled “Environmental Disorder Leads to Self-Regulatory Failure,” published in the Journal of Consumer Research). I think the edit added interesting and relevant substance to a page which is riddled with outdated information.
2. My edit of the "Criticism of Wal-Mart" article was also based on an article which covered new research published in the British Journal of Criminology concerning crime rates associated with the number of Wal-Marts in US counties. Again, this is interesting and relevant substance for a reader.
I would like to make it clear to you and all other key members of the wiki community that those edits are based on "sourced research" which (in my opinion) adds value to the articles.
In a nutshell, the reason I joined is because I want to use my knowledge of certain topics to add quality content (backed with references) to this site (a great medium for people to learn). I am new here and I would like to contribute. I truly feel that my input (though it will not be substantial) will improve articles.
-- ☾Jnordqvist☽
--Understood. I would like to continue contributing to the site as I often come across articles that lack new research/findings. However, in order to avoid COI, I will (as pointed out) cite the original abstract or report.
Thank you for the slap on the wrist and clearing that up for me Loriendrew. -- ☾Jnordqvist☽
Hello. There's currently a discussion at Talk:Jack William Pithey about including a year of death based on this article from the Oxford DNB. User:Mewulwe argues that it cannot be used because the Oxford DNB sometimes takes information from Wikipedia and thus is not a reliable source in this instance, since at one point Pithey's DOD was included in Wikipedia without a reliable source. There is no evidence, however, that the article proposed to cite Pithey's death took anything from Wikipedia (in fact, it is dated for October 2005, long before the material was added to Wikipedia) and any assertion that it took the year of death from Wikipedia is, in my opinion, tantamount to original research unless evidence can be provided. Having said that, consensus is king, so I think that it is best if this issue is sorted out at RSN. Canadian Paul 23:49, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm leaning towards yes, at least in this instance where the reviewer in question is one of the originators of the site, which has been around since 2007. The site in question is AV Maniacs, which previously went under the name DVD Maniacs. It's used on other pages on here under either name, but I wanted to get a second opinion on this since I'm not entirely familiar with this site (or just looked over it when I was looking for reviews). Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 11:19, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Link - [27]
I have checked Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources and it is not mentioned anywhere. Can someone tell me if this is reliable or not since it holds news posts, reviews and so on. - SilentDan297 talk 16:47, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
"Under The Gun reviewers are amateurs, so let's not use Under The Gun". That's reasonable.
At Talk:Puerto Rico#RfC:Can the existence of the PR status controversy be admitted to the article?, I propose the language, “While government sources list Puerto Rico as an "unincorporated" territory, it has also been referred to as "incorporated" into the United States during scholarly disputes over Puerto Rican status.”
I source the existence of a scholarly controversy over the status of Puerto Rico at Burnett and Marshall, Foreign in a Domestic Sense, p.15, 17.
Puerto Rico’s transition into “commonwealth” status in 1952 raised these questions in a debate that continues today. … Whether this means the island ceased to be an unincorporated territory… remain the sources of considerable disagreement. p.15
, and an element of the controversy “incorporated” at Lawson and Sloane, Boston College Law Review, p.1175 which is not currently reflected in the article.
… regardless of how Puerto Rico looked in 1901 when The Insular Cases were decided or in 1922, today, Puerto Rico seems to be the paradigm of an incorporated territory as modern jurisprudence understands that legal term of art. p.1175.
I am told here and in prior discussion that there is no controversy but my disruption and soapboxing, I am not being concise, there is no such controversy in Puerto Rican politics, it does not meet significance, and the Boston College Law Review is a self-published unreliable source. I am unsure how to procede. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 09:21, 7 February 2014 (UTC)
As with most "Law Review"s, it is a student publication, though competitive and highly supervised/edited. It also publishes articles by outside non-student legal experts. Which type of article/note is being referred to is important. See its description here [ [30]] Anonymous209.6 ( talk) 02:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Is being added to some BLPs - the problem I have is that it appears less sourced than the corresponding Wikipedia articles. In the case of Rick Scott it has his mom working for "J. C. Penny" and the like -- which makes me doubt that it is really a "reliable source" as required by Wikipedia. In addition, it is a wiki, though it says most articles are professionally written or reviewed. But whn such silly stuff is in it, and much has no references, I somehow think t fails WP:RS. It even has a place for politicians to "submit your bio to Ballotpedia" which makes me even more credulous.
Other views? Collect ( talk) 18:54, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
Is wargs.com [32] a reliable source for saying "[Ron Paul's] paternal grandfather emigrated from Germany, as did his paternal grandmother's parents, while his mother was of three quarters German and one quarter Irish ancestry" in Ron Paul? Dezastru ( talk) 16:09, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
It is a mistaken belief that professor Moriarty's first name is James. In all references to "Professor Moriarty" never is a first name listed. The confusion is because on the first page of "The Final Problem" by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, Dr. Watson references some writings by Colonel James Moriarty the brother of professor Moriarty as shown below:
"My hand has been forced, however, by the recent letters in which Colonel James Moriarty defends the memory of his brother, and I have no choice but to lay the facts before the public exactly as they occurred."
Additional confusion is also due to the PBS/BBC production of "Sherlock" which also refers to professor Moriarty as "James" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.9.39.60 ( talk • contribs) 15:51, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Articles such as Buddhism by country or List of religious populations have been constructed through misuse of sources and original research (for example combining statistics of different religions), in order to enormously inflate the number of Buddhists in the world.
1. Sources. The book or web page being used as the source.
a. Reference 1. Sutherland, A. The Man behind the music:(2008). There is one well-known and one lesser-known book by this name, but no evidence that this exists. No publisher information given.
b. Reference 4 & 9. Williams, S. (2001), "Cecil Jay Roberts: My Life, My Story, My Words", Johnson & J. Wood, Akana Press, Pitoria. I find no evidence of "Akana Press". "Pitoria" seems like a typo, at best.
c. References 5. and 8. Both of these articles were written by "QueStar Management", which appears to be Cecil Jay Roberts management company. It seems they should be treated as an
WP:SPS.
1) Campbell, Marjorie."Cecil Jay Roberts - a star is born!", Christian Today, London, 26 April 2010.
2) Travis, Maria. "Cecil Jay Roberts: 'Ceeing' in 2013", Christian Today, London, 17 September 2013.
2. Article.
Cecil Jay Roberts. Also see
Talk:Cecil_Jay_Roberts#Reliable_sources_needed
3. Content.
Extended content
|
---|
a. Reference 1. is used extensively in the article. Without this single reference, roughly 1/2 of the article would be unreferenced:
b. References 4 & 9
2) Reference 9 (the author of the article just added this in response to a "citation needed tag"
[38], then removing the tag
[39]. It seems unlikely that a 2001 book would provide reference for a 2014 TV show which is otherwise not listed as being broadcast.
c. References 5. and 8 are also used extensively in the article, providing citations for most of the remaining text.
1) Reference 8.
|
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JoeSperrazza ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 16 February 2014
The Tor (anonymity network) receives some of its funding from government sources. This was already covered in the article. WhisperToMe added a September Washington Post 'The Switch' blog post which featured quotes from two Tor representatives explaining the context for the federal funds it receives and denying that it grants any direct backdoor access.
A user with a dynamic IP (most recently on the talk page as 178.8.155.17) reverted ( r1 r2 r3). A discussion formed on the talk page, so I self-reverted to remove the text again until we could figure it out given a cited BLP issue.
There's a thread on the talk page on this, but to summarize: The IP's argument seems to be that the source is not reliable (hence using this noticeboard) and should not be included because of its frame of "should we trust it?" He/she says the article is speculating about problems with Tor and accusing the Tor representatives of lying. I see no such thing. We already mention the funding from the government. A question of what that funding means for a project about privacy should be assumed. Asking it, and even being skeptical about it, is just journalism.
Two quotes from Tor representatives from a Washington Post blog. If that's all that's taken from it, I don't think it matters even if the author was looking for dirt. To me this is an obvious one, but as nobody else has weighed in on the talk page, I come here. --— Rhododendrites talk | 15:08, 9 February 2014 (UTC)
Note Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Tor_.28anonymity_network.29. -- NeilN talk to me 13:58, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
This concerns the use of the following study ( here or here) on the article Haaretz.
A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz was "more likely to present stories told from the Israeli side" than the Palestinian side.
A 2003 study in The International Journal of Press/Politics concluded that Haaretz's reporting of the Israeli–Palestinian conflict was more favorable to Israelis than to Palestinians.
No similar conclusion appears in the article's conclusion section. The closest finding is the quote from page 117 used in Option 1.
Primary sources: It seems clear that this is a primary source. See WP:PSTS; WP:USINGPRIMARY ("The first published source for any given fact is always considered a primary source.") "Primary sources allow researchers to get as close as possible to original ideas, events and empirical studies as possible. Such sources include publication of the results of empirical observations or studies. Examples include: Data sets, technical reports, experimental research results." On the other hand, "scholarly articles that don't present new experimental research results" are secondary. [40] "Primary source includes journal articles of original research [exactly what this is], conference papers, dissertations, technical reports, and patents." [41]
Different language: Though similar, there is subtle difference in language and meaning between the two options. Given that this is a primary source, WP:PSTS tells us to exercise special care with primary sources to ensure its conclusions are not misinterpreted or over-interpreted by readers: "Do not analyze, synthesize, interpret, or evaluate material found in a primary source yourself." For that reason (and advice provided on WP:QUOTE), Option 1 seems like the most reliable representation of the finding in the primary source. -- Precision123 ( talk) 02:17, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
FFS -- this source has already been discussed, and Precision123 didn't get the answer he/she wanted. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:13, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Viser's article isn't a primary source: it's an evaluation of content published by the New York Times and Haaretz, and in this case the content from those newspapers is the primary literature (those articles themselves include interviews, etc. as primary sources, and commentary). Just because it's a secondary source doesn't mean that Viser's opinions need by accepted without qualification by Wikipedia, of course. - Darouet ( talk) 18:38, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
I am a little bit lost. This is a secondary source. This is published work providing different analysis of primary materials (articles from Ha'aretz and NYT). I cannot answer for the quality of this.
Anyway, I have at home a tertiary source about the same topic (bias in media coverage of the I-P conflict and in particular in Newspayer): Jérôme Bourdon, Le récit impossible : le conflit israélo-palestinien et les médias, de boeck. His conclusions are nevertheless at the opposite.
Pluto2012 (
talk) 08:06, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This is becoming Banal at this point. The argument of that talk page is slipping over here. Is it a reliable source? Is it a primary or secondary source? It seems to me those are the only questions that should be asked here. Anything beyond that you should be left to that talk page.
Pluto it would be great if you would share that source if you have the time. Serialjoepsycho ( talk) 09:48, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This is an academic source. In the natural sciences individual papers are regarded as primary sources, but in the social sciences that isn't the case. Therefore treat as a reliable secondary source. It would be prudent to attribute. Itsmejudith ( talk) 13:30, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
AllthePigs Theatre Company ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Is this an appropriate reference for AllthePigs aims to support the Equity Fringe Theatre Agreement and pay their actors and creative teams at least minimum wage in the article? 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 21:51, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
This edit:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Chengdu_J-20&action=historysubmit&diff=596034615&oldid=596033920
Dismisses the Washington Times and the Global Times. Are these really so unreliable that we should scrub them from WP? Hcobb ( talk) 16:04, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
So is this a specific failure of the WT, or are they uncovering PRC censorship? Hcobb ( talk) 18:22, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Page: 2014 Venezuelan protests ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
There has been some editwarring going on over there that largely seems grounded in multiple ongoing RS disputes (with some contradictions between contested sources and primary sources thrown in the mix for extra fun). Multiple eyes needed. Suggest people who can read spanish, understand Latin American media issues and hopefully don't have political axes to grind on either side. I have my own biases in this matter and am largely recusing myself from editing as I'm not certain I could keep my own POV entirely out of it but I recognize that problematic current events need many eyes and figure I can help this way. Simonm223 ( talk) 21:56, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Are
reliable sources for presenting Kill Dil and Finding Fanny Fernandes as films of 2014 in this manner
Year | Film | Role | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
2014 | Finding Fanny Fernandes | TBA | Cameo appearance [1] [2] |
2014 | Kill Dil | TBA | Filming |
or is it a more appropriate range of their reliability per WP:CRYSTAL's " Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place. " and "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view. In forward-looking articles about unreleased products, such as films and games, take special care to avoid advertising and unverified claims" and WP:NFF and WP:V to present the content as
Year | Film | Role | Notes |
---|---|---|---|
Scheduled for 2014 | Finding Fanny Fernandes | TBA | Cameo appearance [3] [4] |
Scheduled for 2014 | Kill Dil | TBA | Filming |
References
Additional discussion (and personal attacks) can be seen Talk:Ranveer_Singh#Kill_Dil -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:30, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
In my opinion the website here [47] is a self-published source ineligible to be used in the Alger Hiss article.
My opinion is supported by a 2001 news report about the site which says:
There is an ongoing discussion on the talk page of the article.
Right now the website's author is being used to rebut a legitimate scholarly source, particularly in this paragraph:
Historian Jeff Kisseloff questions Haynes and Klehr's conclusion that Vassiliev's notes support Hede Massing's story about talking to Hiss at a party in 1935 about recruiting their mutual friend and host Noel Field into the Communist underground. According to Kisseloff, "all that the files Vassiliev saw really indicate is that she was telling yet another version of her story in the 1930s. Haynes and Klehr never consider that, as an agent in Washington, D.C., who was having little success in the tasks assigned to her, she may have felt pressure back then to make up a few triumphs to reassure her superiors."[115] Kisseloff also disputes Haynes and Klehr's linking of Hiss with former Treasury Department official Harold Glasser, whom they allege was a Soviet agent.[116] Finally, Kisseloff states that some of the evidence compiled by Haynes and Klehr actually tends to exonerate rather than convict Hiss. For example, their book cites a KGB report from 1938 in which Iskhak Akhmerov, New York station chief, writes, "I don't know for sure who Hiss is connected with."[117]
CJK ( talk) 15:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
TFD is also a party to this dispute and has been for some time.
His statement about Haynes and Klehr is incorrect. Haynes and Klehr do not "spend an entire chapter rebutting the website and its authors" in any of their books.
Also, I would like to note that my complaint here is restricted to Kisseloff, the website manager, and not necessarily other authors on the website. Per WP:SPS Kisseloff is not an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications.
CJK ( talk) 17:11, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
You admit it is "a partisan site run by a former member or the legal defense team of the article's subject" but still think it is okay for inclusion? The reader as of now is completely mislead into believing that it is scholarly material on par with Haynes and Klehrs' book.
And actually, it isn't run by a member of Hiss's legal team. It is run by Hiss's son and a freelance journalist with a oral history degree.
CJK ( talk) 18:16, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Whether or not the opinions expressed in the website should be included, or to what extent they should be mentioned, is a matter of neutrality, which is a different policy. But there is no question that they are a reliable source for the authors' opinions. Whether or not it is reliable for the facts about the case is another issue. You have presented evidence it is not, although other editors have challenged you on that. But since it is not used as a source of facts, and no one has suggested that it be used as one, that issue is moot. This is really an issue of weight, hence you picked the wrong notice board. TFD ( talk) 18:29, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
AndytheGrump was also a party to this dispute.
He is expressing his "opinion" about the facts of the case. The authors "opinion" about an issue unrelated to their personal lives is only of note if it complies with WP:SPS provisions. Any other assessment would make an abject mockery of said provisions. Anyone could create a website declaring the moon landings were a hoax and, according to you, have it posted in Wikipedia articles as their "opinion".
18:35, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Regarding WP:SPS there is no "significance" loophole. You are just making things up.
And even so, the article and section is about academic discussion of Alger Hiss, not Alger Hiss conspiracy theories.
19:31, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
His "opinion" is about the facts of the case, not about himself personally. As such, it falls under a straightforward WP:SPS violation. There is no evidence you can violate WP:SPS so long as other people have mentioned the site in question.
20:21, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
This noticeboard really works best when the discussion focuses on specific content questions. Please see the request box near the top of the page that says, "Before posting, please be sure to include the following information, if available." I suspect one of the reasons this discussion is dragging on is that the exact statement(s) proposed for inclusion in the Wikipedia article has not been made clear here. Dezastru ( talk) 22:02, 15 February 2014 (UTC)
Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes.... Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y".
Dezastru ( talk) 20:45, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I already did above, you apparently overlooked it.
Historian Jeff Kisseloff questions Haynes and Klehr's conclusion that Vassiliev's notes support Hede Massing's story about talking to Hiss at a party in 1935 about recruiting their mutual friend and host Noel Field into the Communist underground. According to Kisseloff, "all that the files Vassiliev saw really indicate is that she was telling yet another version of her story in the 1930s. Haynes and Klehr never consider that, as an agent in Washington, D.C., who was having little success in the tasks assigned to her, she may have felt pressure back then to make up a few triumphs to reassure her superiors."[115] Kisseloff also disputes Haynes and Klehr's linking of Hiss with former Treasury Department official Harold Glasser, whom they allege was a Soviet agent.[116] Finally, Kisseloff states that some of the evidence compiled by Haynes and Klehr actually tends to exonerate rather than convict Hiss. For example, their book cites a KGB report from 1938 in which Iskhak Akhmerov, New York station chief, writes, "I don't know for sure who Hiss is connected with."[117]
CJK ( talk) 23:14, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
For that passage, which begins with "Historian Jeff Kisseloff questions Haynes and Klehr's conclusion," the actual source is a book review by Jeff Kisseloff that is published on a website of which Kisseloff is also the managing editor. I believe the following are relevant points from the guideline on identifying reliable sources:
Questionable Sources
Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for checking the facts, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, that are promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions. Questionable sources are generally unsuitable for citing contentious claims about third parties, which includes claims against institutions, persons living or dead, as well as more ill-defined entities. The proper uses of a questionable source are very limited.
Self-published sources (online and paper)
Anyone can create a personal web page or publish their own book, and also claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable.... Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.
Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves
Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field, so long as: ... (3) it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject
Now, examining the book review in terms of these considerations:
Kisseloff does not make claims in the review about himself, such as when and where he was born, what city he lives in, how many children he has, or for whom he voted in the most recent election. Those are the sorts of claims about oneself that the Self-published and questionable sources as sources on themselves guideline is meant to provide an exception for. Instead, Kisseloff is making scholarly claims that are contentious and that all involve people and events that are not related directly to himself.
For these reasons, the Kisseloff review does NOT meet Wikipedia's reliability criteria for the passage in contention.
Dezastru (
talk) 03:28, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
Kisselhoff is a professional journalist who contributes to The Nation, where he is archivist, and has a master's degree in journalism from Columbia University. He has written five books, three of which were on oral history:
All of these are reputable publishers and one is the academic press. The website is sponsored by The Nation Institute and hosted by New York University. It has been extensively mentioned by Hiss scholars and includes articles by academics.
All of that together would make the source reliable for facts. However, the source is only used as a primary source for the opinons expressed on the website, which have been established in other reliable sources to be significant to the discussion.
TFD ( talk) 00:23, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to remove some sources based on my understanding they were unreliable. Are there any opinions on whether I was too hasty? They've been re-inserted into the text if I was.
The first source is a now-deadlinked self-published site. It's used for over a dozen claims throughout. I attempted to remove the citation while leaving the material.
I also tried to take this citation out which was cited to www.u-s-history.com, which is identical text to this response on Yahoo questions. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
I am interested in other opinions about the actual reliability of the source: www.falklands.info Is it wrong to question its reliability here? Is it reliable in way I'm not seeing? Is there a fresh pair of eyes that can evaluate this? __ E L A Q U E A T E 14:30, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
astro.com ( links) is used as a source in quite a number of articles. It is a site run by believers in astrology, and many of the links have the magic word "wiki" in the URL. I suspect this might not be wholly reliable... Guy ( Help!) 09:14, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The www.thetruthaboutlarrynorman.com website is the work of the official Larry Norman biographer. http://www.failedangle.com now redirects to this site. Either one or both have been used to support statements on various articles. It appears to be a self-published site, but it has material that was provided to the site owner from the subject which may never be published elsewhere. One editor stated that if "the website can be confirmed to be associated with the Norman family/estate, that alone makes the website notable enough for inclusion", however I've never known an association like this to change the RS of a particular site.
Is the site reliable?
There is an ongoing discussion on the linked article's talk page about its use as well but in the specific context of the article, or at least that's how the discussion statred. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 00:29, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Startropic1 ( talk) 00:58, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
The primary issue is WP:UNDUE -- the documentary should not be given undue weight, nor should problematic sources be used. Collect ( talk) 14:52, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
Doesn't WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source permit the use of these websites for rebuttals anway? We've already established that they're direct rebuttals from the subject's estate. Startropic1 ( talk) 18:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)
From my reading it seems that consensus is the site(s) is (are) not RSes. If the credentials of the site's creator can be verified, individual articles may be used, but only with care. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
It's a self-published blog hosted on Blogspot, which normally makes me think "ewww" but it is written by an industry analyst: David Raab of Raab Associates. It appears to be a one-man analyst firm that specializes in B2B marketing automation. I used the source a couple times on the article on Act-On, a B2B marketing automation vendor, regarding the version history of the software and a recent user-count. I also cited the firm's actual analyst report for the Reception section.
I could see editors saying it is an ideal specialist/expert source, or saying that it is a junk self-published, blog. Is it reliable enough for what it is used for now? Can I use it more to expand the Version history section?
I have a COI.
http://customerexperiencematrix.blogspot.com/
CorporateM ( Talk) 19:57, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
There is an RFC that may be of interest to this forum, of how to describe/qualify Nugent's comments about Obama calling him a "Subhuman mongrel" and Chimpanzee" Talk:Ted_Nugent#Obama_Comments_RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 21:48, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
On Malcolm_B._Frost ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views), extensive detail is referenced to this 'biography' on a US Military website.
To what extent is that considered a 'reliable source'? How much information is it appropriate to take from that source? Although it seems to be 'official', the tone of the text on the website doesn't seem authoritative or professional, and I wonder if it is considered a PRIMARY source in this case?
My own opinion is it's primary, and should therefore only be used to support very basic simple facts (such as he is "from Torrance, California"), and not for claims about his career and other details, unless those are supported by an appropriate independent reference (such as coverage in a newspaper).
I also think that a lot of "operational details" that are currently included ( [55]) don't belong in the BLP, but perhaps could be used in the articles about the units he was with.
I am hesitant to make changes myself right now, as an administrator has told me to 'Buzz off' - and that he knows better [56] ; hence seeking advice here, particularly about the sourcing. Thanks. 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 18:33, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
viz
|
---|
"include the Bronze Star medal (second award), Meritorious Service Medal (sixth award), Air Medal, Army Commendation Medal (sixth award, one for Valor), Army Achievement Medal (second award), National Defense Service Medal with bronze star, Armed Forces Expeditionary and Service Medals, Iraqi Campaign Medal, Global War on Terrorism Expeditionary and Service Medals, Humanitarian Service Medal, NATO Medal, the Ranger Tab, Senior Parachutist Badge, Combat Infantryman's Badge, Expert Infantryman's Badge, Meritorious Unit Citation, Superior Unit Award, and the Department of the Army Staff Identification Badge. " |
It seems to me that the army.mil bio is reliable for all the factual statements cited to it in the article. If anything, we should wonder about what an official army bio leaves out rather than what it includes. I think this is a clearcut application of WP:ABOUTSELF.— alf laylah wa laylah ( talk) 21:34, 16 February 2014 (UTC)
Alf, that's an essay though, not a policy or guideline. But I take your point; an AfD would probably fail - which is unfortunate, because I think that is the core of the problem. There's no policy or guideline to support a single-source SPS BLP, yet it's very hard to get any actually deleted because people refer to essays that have failed to get consensus as policy, and disregard N.
I'm not sure what (if anything) I should do now; there's mixed opinions above. Should the medals and awards be removed from it, as non-neutral self-published, or not? 88.104.19.233 ( talk) 11:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)
The article Baekje currently cites this author in three places, and two of the external links were to his website until a moment ago. A whole bunch of other articles cite him as well. [57] [58]d I get the impression he holds the (fringe) view that immigration to Japan from the Korean peninsula was on an absolute scale, and that they "created" Japanese culture. Admittedly I get this impression primarily from the title of the book, the statements it is being used to back up in the Wikipedia article, and this blog. But the latter also tells me that while he is ( or was?) a professor in a university, his field is economics, not ancient history. His website also lists a large number of articles he has published through reputable academic publishers, but all of them are on economics and trade in modern Korea. Additionally, searching for the name of his publisher brought up apparently no official website, despite more than 4,000 hits. [59] Searching again for his publisher without his name brought up 135 hits. [60] Does it seem to anyone else like we are dealing with a self-publisher who goes through universities and scholarly journals when he can and through his own small publishing house when he can't? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 15:55, 22 February 2014 (UTC)
Is silentlambs.org a reliable source for use in the article Jehovah's Witnesses' handling of child sex abuse. I was reverted when removing such a source, as another user claimed that since it already was used in the article, it was usable [69].
It is used for support to the following claims (the reverted one listed first): "DNA evidence, medical reports, or information from forensic experts or police that proves sexual abuse is also accepted as a valid "second witness", however critics argue that, without mandatory reporting for all accusations of abuse regardless of the local laws, such evidence could remain undetected." (The claim does have a counterclaim, as JW officials have claimed they always report such cases to the authorities in areas where this is mandatory.)
It is also used for the following claims/statements: "Critics claim that in many cases, members of Jehovah's Witnesses have been prevented from reporting child molestation to civil authorities" and "The Watch Tower Society maintains its existing policy, without an explicit requirement for elders to report all child abuse cases where such is not required by law."
The website is also added in "External links". Grrahnbahr ( talk) 13:12, 18 February 2014 (UTC) \
I have requested comments from others at
/info/en/?search=Talk:Persecution_of_Hindus#Request_for_comments because
AcidSnow has blanked the '2005 unrest in Nowshera' section in the
Persecution of Hindus article (one can see that at
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Persecution_of_Hindus&diff=596664536&oldid=596650658), but I believe it was wrong to do so, as the references clearly say so (the references used were:
"Mob ransacks temple in Nowshera". dawn.com. DAWN MEDIA GROUP. June 30, 2005. Retrieved 18 February 2014.,
"PCHR condemns the burning of Hindu Temple in Nowshera". Pak Tribune. Pak Tribune. July 01, 2005. Retrieved 18 February 2014. {{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help) and
US Department of State International Religious Freedom Report 2006). The mob killed many Hindus in and around the temple. Church/temple destruction is also a form of 'persecution'. Thanks!—
Khabboos (
talk) 05:10, 24 February 2014 (UTC)
The Huffington Post is notorious for fabrication, particularly in politics. They have often been criticized for their liberal bias and skewing. Essentially, they are a liberal equivalent of FOX News.
XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 18:43, 6 February 2014 (UTC)
The OP's assertion is not receiving any real support here, and I'll add my voice to the opposition. There's little prospect here of a blanket ban on HuffPo. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 12:04, 8 February 2014 (UTC)
We cannot put a blanket ban on Huffington Post. There is too much high quality news published there. Binksternet ( talk) 21:19, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Every source should be examined in context. Paid professional staffers doing political journalism? Reliable source. Celebrity blogger? Alternative medicine stories? Maybe not so much. Gamaliel ( talk) 22:41, 11 February 2014 (UTC)
I agree with the clear consensus that this source is likely reliable in some instances and not reliable in others, like nearly every other source. XXSNUGGUMSXX, I respectfully suggest you move on unless you have new, significant evidence. ElKevbo ( talk) 00:23, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
How about these?:
XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 01:20, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
Maybe the following?:
XXSNUGGUMSXX ( talk) 02:08, 12 February 2014 (UTC)
This university appears not to exist. It does have a website, allows emails to be sent to different departments, and has a couple phone numbers to contact the university. However, after several emails were sent during a weeks time none of the emails were ever responded to. I did call the United States phone number listed and it is a boggus number. The university is not identified when you call, only a machine answers and you are not able to leave a message. I have requested accreditation informations several times and no one responds. I can't find anyone who works at this university.
Please add this university to your list of universities that are not accreditated.
thanks