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 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 | Archive 169 | Archive 170 | → | Archive 175 |
Is this About.com page on comfort food reliable for the list of American and Canadian comfort foods in this section of the comfort food Wikipedia article? The author of that About.com page is indicated to be a "food service industry professional" (which could mean that she could be anything from a head chef at a four-star restaurant to a burger flipper at McDonald's), but the list of comfort foods is indicated to be derived from a poll that isn't specified or linked to. Nightscream ( talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Does a reliable source reporting a story make them part of the story to the point we should specifically note their involvement? The Brendan Eich article, currently has the following text (emphasis added in bold):
In March 2012 it was publicized that in 2008 Eich had donated $1,000 to the campaign for California Proposition 8 with his employer identified as Mozilla Corporation.[11] This revelation was controversial in the tech sphere,[12] the gay press [13][14] and in social media, particularly Twitter.[15]
The 1st sentence is the subject (Eich made a political donation) and the 2nd sentence states that "This revelation was controversial" in the "tech sphere", the "gay press" and "social media". No one here is denying that A) the donation was made and B) that the donation was the subject of some controversy. However out of all the inline sources proffered none of them appear to make the claim that in particular, this controversy was of specific concern to the "tech sphere" or the "gay press". This source which is indeed from a "tech sphere" based (probably) reliable source makes due note that the donation caused a "shitstorm" on Twitter, but does not make, or even approach to make the claim that the this controversy was of any particular interest amongst the tech sphere. Similarly this and this source, both from the "gay press" report the donation, but these two sources don't even note any controversy whatsoever, much less note there was any ire from members of the "gay press".
Since none of the offered sources make note that this donation is the causing a controversy with members of the tech sphere abuzz or the gay media, I modified this text to simply read This revelation was controversial in social media, and in particular Twitter with an inline reference that directly supports this. Apparently another editor has a problem with this. My feeling is that just because a tech-oriented site and a gay-focused site report on the donation does not make them part of the story. Now if we were to have a RS reporting that the Gay Press Club (im just making this up btw) protested the donation, that would be a different story. But at the moment we don't have that. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
A nicely badly written series of claims which should better read:
rather than the current:
As the amount is not of any significance in the discussions, and the word "revelation" implies that it was in some way a "secret" before. There is no actual definition of "tech sphere" and the mention of "Twitter" is not actually important here. So let's try the simple wording - I think no one contests the coverage in the "gay press" or would feel it needs a separate cite. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The users MD.ET, MUFADALQN are using following sources for the article Mufaddal Saifuddin
The http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm is an exact duplication of the self published blog http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/ both of which are rather propoganda sources which work towards forwarding personal opinions on a heavily disputed and succession issue of Burhanuddin [3] [4] Summichum ( talk) 09:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Respected admins User:Callanecc Sam Sailor Anup Mehra User:Ftutocdg, the current version of the above wiki article is based on citations from badremunir which is one of the claimants own publication and the other fatemidawat.com is another claimants own publication, you can imagine the dubious nature of above source as they have duplicated the above blog on their domain to get accepted on wikipedia hence I request all statements citing the highly biased references of badremuneer be removed and remove all the claims which dont have the citations to support the claim. Also note that this is a very serious controversy and media is closely following this case as billions of dollars worth property is at stake and both the claimants are using all means possible to get control over it. hence Wiki as a champion of neutrality should not allow biased claims from sources published by both the claimants. Persisting the article with stale claims shows poor quality of the article and I request the admins to do a cleanup operation and remove superfluous,dubious claims ref: WP:RS self published source Summichum ( talk) 14:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community
BADRE MUNEER Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252
Follow them from wherever you are:
On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages [5] -- Md iet ( talk) 14:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
See here: [6]. It appears that having instituted some sort of 'peer review' process, it is now being claimed that Wikiversity meets WP:RS and/or WP:MEDRS. Frankly, I see no reason to see this as remotely compatible with WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
For an indication of the validity of the 'peer review' see this example being cited: [7]. A high-school project taking the average weight of 19 teaspoons. As to the remainder of citations, since the articles are medically-related (with the corresponding need for higher standards), I have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I note that all the articles so far linked from Wikiversity seem to have been written by the same person - User:Mikael Häggström. I shall inform him of this thread. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
As discussed above, it seems appropriate to have a discussion in Wikipedia before any usage of a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia. I think such "nomination" can be done at Wikipedia Talk:Wikiversity and leaving a note here, as with this one: Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity#Using steroidogenesis article as reference. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 16:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There are some sources used in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill that I'm not sure are up standards for context. I'd like feedback from the larger community.
I've bolded the part of that statement I have concerns with. The source for that is here: [13]. Since we have claims of ongoing human health issues, shouldn't this meet MEDRS standards? Is this source good enough? And shouldn't we have a source more recent if the statement applies to 2014?
I'll take my leave and I hope that your question above is answered. Geogene ( talk) 01:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
First let me say I apologize for misreading the article. It does say "polypropylene glycol" and not "propylene glycol".
But my statement essentially still stands. While the reporter states that PPG is carcinogenic, there are no studies that establish this according to EFSA and PAN.
Organic compounds that bioaccumulate do so because they are extremely water insoluble (and thus do not migrate out of fat tissues) and because they are resistant to metabolism. Chemically, these properties tend to be associated with chemicals whose structures contain a lot of halogen atoms and few or no oxygen or nitrogen atoms. Every 4th atom in polypropylene glycol is an oxygen atom. It is no more likely to bioaccumulate than a rock is to float. I listened to the entire video cited above, and nowhere in it does the EPA "admit" that PPG bioaccumulates. Formerly 98 ( talk) 08:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
At Wikiproject Medicine, AndyTheGrump has claimed that Wikipedia has specific policies which currently rule out using Wikiversity material as sources for article content, but I don't see such a policy. Both wp:citing sister projects and wp:Citing a wiki are just red links at this time. wp:Identifying reliable sources states that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications... are usually the most reliable sources", and peer-review is mandatory for articles in Wikiversity:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I suggest that we come to a consensus about what to write at Wikipedia:Wikiversity#Using a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia, and I suggest adding "A Wikiversity page cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia content without first having reached consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard or at the relevant WikiProject for each individual case". Mikael Häggström ( talk) 04:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Should The Pilgrims Would Be Shocked: The History of Thoroughbred Racing in New England by Robert Temple be considered a reliable source? The book is self published by Temple, however self-published sources are considered reliable if written by an established expert on the subject matter. According to Amazon, Temple is a former a sports writer who covered horse racing for the "Boston Herald Traveler", worked in the publicity departments of various race track, and writes for "Horse Talk", a southeastern Massachusetts horse racing publication. Does this qualify him as an expert and is this book an appropriate source for articles related to thoroughbred racing in New England (i.e. Suffolk Downs, Narragansett Race Track, Walter E. O'Hara)? -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
[+] another ref [*] Boulanger
My reservations are as follows:
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
This one: http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2011/02/09/we-dont-need-no-education-meet-the-millionaire-dropouts/
Thanks! Bananasoldier ( talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
1- Source: http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/mero1237 2- Article: Meroitic language 3- Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Meroitic_language&diff=601316645&oldid=597844831
Hi, it has come to my attention that one user kwami added the glottolog website opinion on Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. But glottolog is not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic. I tried to reverse the edit made by kwami but my edit was undone by kwami. When I tried to ask for proof and reference demonstrating the glottolog website is a reliable source on Meroitic, I was responsed with "sure it is" and "the rest of us disagree" without such proof and references ever demonstrated.
Let's recall the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline stating "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.". There's no doubt in my mind that the glottolog website can't be considered a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic as it is referenced by no other source beside User:Kwamikagami and Wikipedia.
I read some academic works on Meroitic and none of them mention the glottolog website. I did a google book search on glottolog and didn't see any works using glottolog as content source at all in general, much less about Meroitic and Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. In fact, I never heard of glottolog before kwami created a wikipedia article about it on the 17 of Mars 2014 and proceed to link (almost plugging) the glottolog website in many Wikipedia articles.
My main contentious is that the glottolog website is not used as a reference on Meroitic or Rily's assesment of Meroitic by any source beside kwami and now Wikipedia. So the glottolog's website point of view on Meroitic shouldn't be added to the Wikipedia page. It's not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Rily's assessment of Meroitic. Thank you for reading me. DrLewisphd ( talk) 12:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Looking at Islam-related articles I see a plethora of original research and polemic opinions and lack of neutral views. I ran into this book by Lesley Hazleton and was wondering if I could use it in the articles related to early Islamic history. Thanks.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A new editor is considering the use of, for example, court documents as references in an article. These documents, not restricted to those from a court, but 'official' papers, are to be used as references in an article. They are what one might term "Official Papers."
I am unsure whether these documents form primary sources or reliable sources, or, indeed, whether their status would vary from article to article. I am aware that some may be of the calibre of Witness Statements, which, by their very nature, are flawed except to show the contents of the witness statement. Others may be the formal submission of evidence.
Please would experienced editors look at this class of reference in its broadest sense or point me at the right place to look if the discussion has been held and documented previously?
I am inviting the new editor to come here to join in with any discussion. Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like feedback on any prior debate regarding dismissal or not of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper into the bin of tabloid journalism - Can this be considered a reliable source? Some of my fellow editors and I are in disagreement with others on the pages for Cara Delevingne and for Michelle Rodriguez, where some have noted information now bubbling out from a variety of sources about the nature of their relationship. The UK's Telegraph has been cited as reliable, whilst the Daily Mail has not. To me, clearly, the "Red top" UK tabloids are not reliable. But what of the DM, in a full-blown article (not just their celebrity gossip columns)? This is a fluid situation. Every day, it seems, more ink is spilled on this story, and because of the notoriety of the two women involved, more and more media sources are picking it up. Thank you. Jax MN ( talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: In the past some editors have called it the "Daily Fail" and "Daily Heil" and have suggested that its political orientation be "extreme right wing." The fact is that the paper - like almost every newspaper which prints "celebrity news" - has been sued in the past for defamation, but that most of the PCC complaints are such stuff as (specific example) DM asserting that a great deal of waste from the UK ends up in foreign landfills, but did not properly state that the practice is illegal. For most routine matters of fact, it is just as reliable as any newspaper -- they all are fallible, but when one removes "celebrity" stuff, they all tend to be in the same field. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Is this online source reliable as a news source? Thanks! Bananasoldier ( talk) 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, also, are Earth911.com and treehugger.com reliable? Thanks. Bananasoldier ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I see the North Borneo dispute and Sultanate of Sulu articles use this source. Seems like a self published website when I see the website page icon on my browser. Any opinion about this website? Should we remove it from the article? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliability check for this one, please. Thanks! :) Bananasoldier ( talk) 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Is the Office of Management and Budget a reliable source on it's own analysis of federal budget proposals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paul_Ryan&oldid=603620005&diff=prev
Hcobb ( talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, this archiving thing is getting annoying. This continues (and hopefully concludes) part one and part two. I'm going to quote the latter some; essentially, I was addressing two topics, one is clearly more or less finished [1], the other isn't.
I figure - obviously counterfactually, but I don't care - that registration is more or less an agreement to support the policies. So I've previously put it off, and now don't want to. What I'm trying to do is find out whether anyone here, or elsewhere in Wikipedia, thinks the person who wrote State income tax#History or Half of Asia, for a Thousand Years is worth giving the kind of elementary attention to newbies that could change my mind on this. (Much of the length complained about in the second discussion's first post was requests for pointers, e.g. to *how I could find out* why DramaWiki is blacklisted. Most went unanswered; GRuban at least pointed me to some documents, though mostly ones I'd already read.)
And if the rules change from discussions like this one, I'm not seeing how. I haven't been told what's inadequate in my arguments (except that they're long); instead they get refuted by appeal to the very policies I'm arguing against. So I'm not saying that my arguments are good enough to change policies, but am saying that I don't see a mechanism here that gets policies changed.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
[1] I continue to think verifiability policy is essentially insane, but it's quite clear by now that my arguments are not going to be addressed, and my requests for justifications for the policy are not going to be answered, except to the limited extent already provided by GRuban. But a couple of detail notes:
Presumably this relies on this sentence: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I note that the following sentence reads: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." So where GRuban sees Rosenbaum's critical work as still OK thanks to his established bona fides, I see the specious claim that his views, if worth "reporting", will be stated by someone else. Hence citing his actual blog, as opposed to third parties mentioning it, is "discouraged", as I wrote and GRuban apparently objects to. Evidently, and this is part of what I consider insane, critical ideas are in fact judged by the same standards as scientific ones.
Does "amateurs" refer to Dramabeans writers as unpaid (which is factually untrue, as I've already mentioned) or as uneducated? If the latter, I note that Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper, neither of whom were educated in film criticism or in film, are widely cited in English Wikipedia. Just to pick critics active in Chicago when I lived there. (Huh. Neither was Jonathan Rosenbaum, nor Pauline Kael.) Oh, but wait, they were paid. Oh, but wait, so's Dramabeans. Oh, but wait, Dramabeans is self-published, and we're back in circularity!
Your most obvious way out is to point out the role of the editor; editors hired those film critics, while javabeans hired herself. So I assume much of Charles Dickens's non-fiction work, which appeared in various magazines he edited, is just as untouchable as Dramabeans? And again as to William Morris: we should rely on his works published in third-party publications, not on News from Nowhere, to get at his real views, right? because he was the latter's only editor. [2] Oh, and again: the one thing a Wikipedian on William Blake must not do is consult the original editions, because those were self-published, right?
javabeans and girlfriday are editors to the other writers at Dramabeans. So are those writers OK to cite, just not the two who run the site?
[2] Sigh. Morris was editor and publisher of Commonweal, where the serial version of News from Nowhere began appearing in January 1890, until May of that year, when David Nicoll replaced him as editor but not as publisher. Morris and Nicoll disagreed considerably, and it isn't at all obvious to me that Nicoll would have edited News in any meaningful way while it continued, until October. It appeared, revised, in book form May 1891. Sources: pp. 580ff in William Morris: A Life for Our Time by Fiona MacCarthy, 1995, and relevant entries in A Bibliography of William Morris by Eugene LeMire, 2006. Does this mean that if News is cited as representing Morris's views, it should only be to the May-October 1890 issues of Commonweal, and not to the book version or the first part of the serial?
128.95.223.129 ( talk) 04:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The main issue is that I've been asking, for about a month now, for either discussion of the policies you're citing, a pointer to a more appropriate place for such discussion, or a pointer to existing written explanations of why they have to be the way they are. None has been offered, nor have I found the latter on my own, and the conclusion I came to early, that Wikipedia's verifiability policy is nothing but a very strange game whose rewards don't measure up to its challenges, remains, against all my expectations, unrefuted. I know that my standards of evidence are both vastly looser and vastly tighter than Wikipedia's, and don't know why I should adapt.
So I'm done. I'm not feeling childish enough to go and wipe out all the work I've done on Wikipedia to date, to the extent I can find it, but here's a list of the main items in case someone else wants to protect the encyclopaedia from my flawed understanding of how it should be written:
Note that while the first, essentially a synopsis of a non-fiction work, and the last, based on a raft of "unreliable" sources, are easily challenged, you'll have to get more creative when it comes to the income tax section. I'd suggest lack of interest as the obvious reason to delete it, if one's wanted; it's been around long enough that if it'd had significant readership, it ought not remain essentially all my work.
At any rate, nobody need fear any more of my writing here.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
66.212.73.202 ( talk) 01:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Over a period of years, various algorithms to determine whether a year in the Gregorian calendar is a leap year have been added to Leap year and repeatedly disputed my many editors. User Kriceslo claims that an algorithm the editor wrote is from a reliable source because the editor had previously posted it to Stack Overflow. I contend that while Stack Overflow may offer useful suggestions to programmers with the expertise to evaluate which posts are correct and which are erroneous, for Wikipedia purposes it is user-generated content, self-published, and the authors are not demonstrably experts in their respective fields (which means, for Wikipedia purposes, having published in reliable, non-self-published, sources in the relevant field). I think in this case, because of the frequent disputes, the source be obviously reliable to nearly any reader who comes along.
The talk page discussion is at Talk:Leap year#Demand reliable algorithm source. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, how about this:
For civil use (as opposed to ecclesiastical use), leap years are calculated as follows:
Every year that is exactly divisible by 4 is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; these centurial years are leap years only if they are exactly divisible by 400. [1]
Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 17:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Trying to nail down a source for a "definitive algorithm" is probably unnecessary. What needs to be sourced (and is already sourced) is the definition of the Gregorian leap year. The translation from this to pseudo-code is not hard, and the version currently displayed is correct, transparent, and reasonably efficient. (I agree with Jc3s5h that the algorithm section needs a bit more documentation.) It wouldn't hurt to reference actual code, but the version displayed in the article need not be identical, as the source would likely be tied to a specific programming language and might require additional explanation or interpretation. I do not regard Jc3s5h's complaint as a problem: yes, the article is often edited by well-meaning but misguided editors; but it is always corrected in relatively short order. This is no different from countless WP articles, and as we all know, even a sterling source will not forestall this. If Jc3s5h is primarily concerned about the authority of the correction, it would suffice to add an HTML comment to the algorithm indicating that it is the result of consensus on the talk page and that suggested changes should be discussed there first. -- Elphion ( talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested in using this YouTube video [20] of a local singing competition, to state that Scotty McCreery's parents had him take sixth months of piano, before letting him learn guitar (discussed in the introductory remarks from around 0:42 to 0:52). I'm not sure who took the video - it could have just been someone in the audience or it could have been someone involved with the event. This seems to be the only place that the video is available online, so it might be fair to assume that it was taken by the same person that uploaded it. However, I'm not sure what to make of the characters in the top left corner.
The information presented in this video is clearly accurate, since McCreery himself appears in the video. However, since it was simply uploaded onto a personal account, by someone who doesn't seem have any established credibility, I'm not sure that the video would be acceptable as a reference under normal circumstances. However, there's one thing that makes me think that it might be okay - the video was linked to from the town government's official website [21] (Second paragraph - "Here he is on the stage of the Clayton Center").
What's the typical policy on using these types of videos, and how is the video's reliability effected (if at all) by it being linked to by an official website? -- Jpcase ( talk) 19:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy, whether many citations of RT news (a source biased in favor of Russian government) can be removed from the article without explaining each particular instance removal. For example, one of the statements that some editors are trying to remove completely, is this:
A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries were registered to monitor the referendum, [1] [2] [3]
— Petr Matas 20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you refer to RT as biased in favour of the Russian Government? Would you say that the BBC is in favour of the British Government? How about CNN as in favour of the American Government? Look at all these sources and identify which impartially reported on the US - Iraq war and the claim of weapons of mass destruction. If you are claiming that RT's reports regarding the Crimean crisis are non-factual then provide evidence. In particular look at the activity of Volunteer Marek on the Crimea pages - removes anything which puts some balance in the article.
— equilibrado 7 April 2014
There are controversial facts and there are non-controversial facts. For controversial facts RT is most certainty not a reliable source: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. It could be used for non-controversial facts (indeed on the Crimean Referendum where RT was used to cite non-controversial facts I left it alone). The thing is, if a fact really is non-controversial, then 99 times out of a 100 one can find a more solid, really reliable source. And replace.
Additionally, there's really no reason to try and include more than at most two citations to any piece of text. You know, don't do cite-padding like this "blah blah blah [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]". That just looks bad and betrays a certain kind of desperate attempt to push some POV. Hence if there's already solid, reliable sources used to cite something, an additional source such as RT is simply not necessary. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that more than two refs can be excessive but it may be appropriate to have RT as one of them. My personal rule, not particularly for wikipedia, is that if a 'Western' source and RT agree then something is likely to be true, for everything controversial I have to choose between them. We should bear in mind that Russian sources were highlighting the involvement of Pravy Sektor for some weeks before 'Weestern' Sources really picked up on this. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 06:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if RT says something and others neither agree nor oppose, then we shoud write "RT says...," as their report may be unreliable, but it is surely notable: There are zillions of people who believe it. — Petr Matas 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The most recent edition of Private Eye, arguably the best investigative journalism periodical in the UK, described RT as "Putin's propaganda channel". I don't think it can be considered to be a reliable source for anything concerning Russia or something the Russian government has a strong opinion on. Number 5 7 20:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would any newspaper misreport on a statement made by person X, if the newspaper is biased in favor of X? — Petr Matas 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The same issues are coming up at Ukrainian Revolution with references from RT removed without consideration of context. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 06:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Russians say the US/EU news are biased, the US/EU say the Russian news are biased. Who's correct? Its essentially like the Cold War: both sides introduce a slant to support their case. And frankly I myself have noted many instances of uniform media bias in US/EU media. The point is: its not up to us to decide which country can or can not publish sources for use on Wikipedia.
The concept that "media not directly owned by the government must be neutral" is a massive non sequitur. Even if we were to assume there was no way for governments and corporations to carrot-and-stick media outlets (which is silly), its still in the interest of the media conglomerates to support their own country/block of countries. Its in the interest of the EU to bring (as much as possible of) Ukraine into its sphere. Its ultimately in the interest of EU media corporations to support that endeavor. There's really no room for that sort of naïveté regarding either side. None of them are really THIRDPARTY.
Imo the best thing to do is to simply attribute both sides. That is to say: "Russian government or media media sources say" and "EU/US government or media sources state", etc. -- Director ( talk) 18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
A new user, Bakaso, has come to the Talk:Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page and is asking that the sources be qualified as coming from Jewish Marxist scholars, extremist sources, and identifying the Southern Poverty Law Center as an extremist source. They believe that the conspiracy theory itself is a conspiracy theory by neo-Marxists to cover up their Frankfurt School roots. They believe that the entire article is opinion, and therefore falls under the WP:YESPOV opinion as facts. I disagree but would like some input as to if we should qualify the religion, ideology, and name of the sources within the text. Coffeepusher ( talk) 21:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over the pronunciation of Aram Khachaturian's name in English.
At least four sources use "AH-rahm KAH-chah-TOOR-yahn" as the pronunciation of his name:
Are these sources reliable? At least two of them (Well-tempered & Grolier) are academic.
Question: Is the pronunciation used by these sources notable/significant/relevant enough to be included in the article alongside the (apparently more common) pronunciation used by generic dictionaries? -- Երևանցի talk 01:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Is US Weekly reliable? I only saw one discussion about it in the archives Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 112#US Weekly and People magazine - one person said that they "wouldn't count on" it, while the other person said that it would depend on the context. I'm wanting to use this article [42] to say that Scotty McCreery's first job was at a car shop (and possibly say one or two other things about him.) Would that be alright? -- Jpcase ( talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Are government sources considered reliable sources regarding issues of government over their own country? At issue is whether the Russian government is a reliable source about whether Crimea and Stevastapol are considered federal subjects of Russia. Specific edit in question is here. Source in question is http://kremlin.ru/news/20605. See Talk:Russia#Number_of_federal_subjects for context. EvergreenFir ( talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Changing the word "including" to "counting" might alleviate the slant, somewhat. Howunusual ( talk) 22:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I and @ Yambaram: are in conflict against users @ Huldra: and @ Bjerrebæk: who thinks that our edit here is fringed. The edit have more then enough sources which indicate that the former PM of Norway said an anti-semitic remark. The sources include: The Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, FrontPage Magazine and JNS.org. According to our reliable sources policy we as Wikipedians rely on "newspapers, magazines, books, and media", to make a balanced and neutral article, and the above sources fit that bill perfectly. However, the two (and one neutral) users believe that the sources are extremist and far right. My questions is, if they are extremist and fringed why do are they not blacklisted and if they are considered to be an RS (if they do), why is the sourced material being removed over fringe and POV allegations if the material is sourced from a reliable source and not a personal blog? Or the policy to what is, and what is not considered to be a reliable source have changed over one article? I seen The Jerusalem Post being used more then on one article relating to Israeli leaders, therefore makes it an RS. Or now while JPost is an RS to Israeli-Palestinian articles it is not an RS for Norway related articles? If so, I don't see a paragraph in reliable sources policy which indicate that source should only be in native language or express the view of only (in this case) Norwegians, by using Norge language newspapers? It does said that "it is preferred" but its not mandatory. Now, to get the full picture, we have this discussion on one of the users talkpage here, on the article's talkpage here and two notice boards here and here. I hope that this confusion will soon be solved, because as of now as a new editor (in POV field), I think that I am being falsely accused of reverting removal of sourced content.-- Mishae ( talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.Also look at WP:BIASED as even if a source is generally reliable, it may be reporting an opinion that is fringe or could be given WP:UNDUE weight compared to the bulk of other reliable sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
...the rule states that as long as its not self published, its O.K.This is not what is meant by our policies at all. Some of the sources you mention would be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE, lacking reputations for reliability and fact-checking, and you would need to make a convincing case that they could be used specifically for a deeply contentious claim about a living person. I think you are highly unlikely to convince many editors that these sources represent a mainstream and neutral view on whether someone is an anti-semite, especially as the issue seems to be what wasn't said by the subject at an event. Saying that a failure to verbally denounce a pro-Palestinian rally as being anti-Semitic is somehow actual proof that someone is personally anti-Semitic is the view of a tiny minority. If you can't find consensus that it is not being given WP:UNDUE weight or that it's free of WP:BLP concerns, it probably won't end up in the article the way you've suggested. That might be as it should be.
To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.You would need much more clearly reliable sources to assert what you were adding is a widely significant interpretation of this BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I made this edit at the Trans-Pacific Partnership page and it was removed apparently because the source isn't the New York Times, CNN and so forth. Can I use this article by the Republic Report since it's based on and provides links to documents and mainstream press reports?-- The Best There Is 'Snikt!' ( talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
1. "The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier" by Zwettler, M Publisher=epubli GmbH, isbn=9783844239225 http://books.google.ca/books?id=hz9WeFoj1pIC No page numbers that I can see in the Google view. A search for Leavitt Bulldog will lead to both the Olde English Bulldogge and Leavitt Bulldog section.
3.
It is one of several breeds developed in order to overcome the genetic problems in the English Bulldog breed
The source makes statements along these lines under the Olde English Bulldogge section, but not within the Leavitt Bulldog section. The Leavitt Bulldog section states he renamed his original breed to avoid association with "other alternative breeders" using the same name for their dogs. I think my larger question is how valid is the source in the first place? It doesn't seem to be self-published, but it is only available as an ebook and by a German publisher I have no information on aside from their website. The grammatical errors make it obvious that the writer was not a native English-speaker who had no editorial support and/or used translation software that didn't do such a good job. I have identified a couple of factual errors within the two sections of the book referenced as well. Ss 051 ( talk) 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Source : Mitannian (Armenian) origin
Article : Aleppo
Content : Parshatatar, king of the Hurrian Armenian kingdom of Mitanni
Case : this claim and source was discussed in the Talk:Mitanni#Regarding Petrie source in Historical Context, it was refused and the Mitanni page doesn't mention mitanni as an Armenian country, is that source reliable and enough to support the claim that Mitanni is an Armenian state , does the source mention this as a fact and does it mention specifically that mitanni is Armenian?? and if it does, is it consistence with academic consensus about mitanni ?? Thanks -- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The issue as I see it is that Aleppo had a sentence that started " Parshatatar, king of the Hurrian Armenian kingdom of Mitanni," and was sourced to a book by Leonard William King which IMHO is not a reliable source for this claim that Mitanni was an Armenian kingdom. There has been a problem with an IP hopper recently over this so I suggested RNS not as a solution to an IP hopper but just as a check. This is a contentious area (I mean articles relating to Armenia) and we would need very good sources starting with a similar statement at Mitanni saying it was an Armenian kingdom. Note also that Parshatatar doesn't claim it was Armenian. Dougweller ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Are the online magazines at historynet.com considered WP reliable sources. If this is not the right place, where can I find out? Hmains ( talk) 02:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been seeing efforts by various IPs and a seemingly connected user to add references or external links to http://www.hnkcnews.com (e.g. [44] [45] [46] search). Is this considered acceptable for references/external links? If not, can someone do the needful? Thank you, – xeno talk 15:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Source: http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/thailand-on-the-brink/2/
Nominated source #1: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/thai-crisis-splits-families-as-bunker-mentality-deters-stability.html
Nominated source #2: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/world/asia/thailand-unrest-analysis-marshall/
Article: 2013-14 Thai political crisis
Content:
a hidden agenda: the royal succession
I am having trouble dealing with one of the page I am editing. I am not sure I am heading to the right direction anymore in the talk page so I would like to seek some opinion here.
In short, the claim is that the leader of the ongoing protest in Thailand is having a hidden agenda for (or against? they did not tell) the royal succession. The writer put it in in the form of factual statement and claiming that the specified source, among other sources, is a reliable source for this fact. When I opened the discussion, they nominated more sources as I specified and tell that those sources are reliable sources to support the claim.
My argument against this is those are opinion and conjecture and does not directly support the content, hence not the reliable source for the content. They are only reliable source for their opinion.
They also claim the news author cannot provide concrete evidence for that claim because of Thailand's lese majesty law, and I would object that incomplete information is incomplete no matter what the reason is.
Any opinion support or against my argument are welcome. Thank you. -- Biglobster ( talk) 17:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
On the Elton Mayo article a recent discussion has taken place regarding a 2004 edit, here: [49] which appears quite correct, based on a number of reliable sources, that Elton Mayo was indeed a psychologist.
In fact, specifically the reliable sources say an Australian born psychologist. I cited these sources below as examples. But there are many more. However the other editor again deleted them, see here: [50] and so here we are.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541 http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767 Australian Cultural History (1988) edited by Samuel Louis Goldberg, Francis Barrymore Smith (page 95)
A brief discussion has ensued on the Talk:Elton Mayo page, however it has got nowhere, and rather than even get close to edit warring on this issue (I have not reverted again), I'm posting it here instead to get a wider perspective from some independent editors. The other editor has instead added the terms "researcher" and "organization theorist"? without any reliable sources as far as I can tell?
Hopefully some experienced editors can take a look please, and decide on whether the placement of this "Elton Mayo (Australian born) psychologist" statement in the article lead is justified based on the reliable sources provided? I'll accept whatever outcome is decided on this RS issue. Thanks. Mrm7171 ( talk) 06:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo
http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Elton_Mayo
http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Elton-Mayo/158890
http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767
http://www.nndb.com/people/043/000119683/bibliography/
http://persona.rin.ru/eng/view/f/0/36377/Elton-Mayo--George-Elton-Mayo-
As far as i remember, we mentioned Elton Mayo as a "psychologist" in industrial and organizational psychology lecture at university. But i am going to check the notes. Maybe it helps. Lamedumal ( talk) 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: Contributing the psychology does not mean being a psychologist or, in other words, does not make one a psychologist. Lamedumal ( talk) 22:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I opened a discussion recently regarding the reliability of this website; no consensus was reached, actually. This website I'm mentioning is called Idolator ( can be found here) and is published by Spin Media (to which I have mixed considerations, as they publish some decidedly reputable works and sites, such as Spin, AbsolutePunk and PopMatters however they are also the publishers of Under the Gun Review and other Kardashian websites which are considered unreliable). Relatively to the writers—95% of the articles used in my article Trouble (Natalia Kills album) are written by their associate editor Sam Lansky which also works for Time and MTV while he has also written for New York magazine and The Atlantic. Two of the sources used in my article are from that website as well but written by Mike Wass (who I believe only works at Idolator however I have no problem with his writing style). Idolator is used in a lot of GAs however people tend to remove those sources when trying to make them FAs.
Well, the problem with my article is that it addresses an album which was not recognized by the general music press (I'm talking about websites like MTV, Rolling Stone, etc.); it also had a weak commercial performance. Basically, the only reputable sources that address the album are (aside from Idolator) AllMusic (review), Digital Spy (vaguely, just an interview with Natalia Kills), Billboard (vague coverage as well) and The New Zealand Herald (review as well). In January, I promoted the article to GA-class and my goal is to have it go FA-class, however I would not be able to further promote its class without the Idolator sources as they would remove a lot of valuable information from the article. Thank you for reading and please comment. ( @ WikiRedactor, XXSNUGGUMSXX, Tomica, STATicVapor, HĐ, and JennKR: Could you guys please comment here? Thanks :) ) prism △ 17:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this question is about how to use reliable sources, rather than about any particular source. Must a sentence in a Wikipedia article be fully supported by each of the footnotes at the end? Or is it enough that the combination of footnotes at the end supports the sentence (e.g. the first footnote supports the first phrase, the second footnote supports the second phrase, et cetera)? I am pretty sure what the answer is, but another editor (Lightbreather) seems to have a different view. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH would lean towards the first interpretation, but if you break the phrases into sentences, that issue goes away. Making a conclusion not supported by a source is WP:OR. Providing the evidence and having the user come to that conclusion on their own is not. If at least one source supports the entire thing, then there is no WP:SYNTH - at that point sources that do not support the whole thing may be used to buttress the individual points that they do support, but the "conclusion" or linking must be supported separately by at least one.. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It is illegal to steal candy in Maryland.(Sourced) Mr Green was seen with candy on Sunday.(Sourced) The police are looking for candy-thieves.(Sourced)or something like
Mr Green's goldfish died.(Sourced) Mr Green said "I am very happy." (Sourced statement not about his goldfish.)It's about whether an original idea not advanced in the individual sources (Mr Green steals candy, hates goldfish) is being insinuated rather than whether the ideas are separated by periods, semi-colons, or the word "and". As Gaijin says, any "conclusion" advanced must be supported by a source; this is still true when the conclusion is strongly and clearly insinuated with juxtaposed sentences. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that every juxtaposition of sourced individual sentences are WP:OR, just that some are.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
These RfCs are largely WP:RS and WP:V related...
There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking for email address or phone number for ‘Phillip Taylor': Serviced US Embassy as Vice Counsel in Medellin Colombia in 1970"s moved to DC after leaving Medellin Colombia, his sister Kathy was living in New York city in the middle of the 1976’s-1979’s etc.
Elizabeth
We have a disagreement over at Talk:Corexit on the use of sources that we feel warrants outside opinions. We already have article content on a study by Rico-Martinez et. al. that asserts that adding Corexit makes oil 52 times more toxic than the oil was alone. This result has been criticized in various places by scientific community due to perceived methodological shortcomings (some of the rebuttals are written by scientists with a potential COI). Two of us would like to add this additional information to put Rico-Martinez into context. The use of these sources is opposed by others on the grounds that use of multiple sources in showing that would be WP:SYNTH, picking one idea from one place, another idea, and adding them together to create a third conclusion not found in any source. I don't think that's the case. I think Rico-Martinez is somewhat disputable and that Corexit didn't necessarily create synergistic toxicity.
The sources we'd like to use are:
(I believe this might be secondary, because it's a rebuttal of one paper by another group one step removed) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113000705
(I believe this is secondary because it's a review of the existing literature on the topic) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2501/full
Media coverage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095400.htm
Media coverage: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-oil-dispersants-marine-life.html
I'm hoping someone will better flesh out the opposing view. Geogene ( talk) 23:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll add my two cents, as I'm the other at Talk:Corexit trying to include criticism of the Rico-Martinez study.
There are four sources in discussion:
1) A toxicology study by Rico-Martínez et al. [57] claiming that Corexit made oil 52x more toxic to rotifers (which GA Tech's media center turned into just 52x more toxic [58]) was widely publicized in 2013. It is cited in oil dispersants and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the lead paragraph of the latter. The study by Rico-Martínez was published in Environmental Pollution journal.
2) In that same journal, a commentary by Coelho, Clark, and Aurand [59] was published later in 2013 that criticized the study. From the abstract of this commentary:
"The 2013 Rico-Martínez et al. publication utilized laboratory testing approaches that severely limit our ability to reliably extrapolate such results to meaningful real-world assessments....Further, they drew real-world conclusions from static exposure tests without reporting actual exposure concentrations."
It was pointed out that Coelho, Clark, and Aurand work for HDR Ecosystem Management, a consulting firm that has worked for BP, Chevron, ExxonMobile, NOAA, EPA, the UN, and more, suggesting possible conflict of interest of Coelho. Furthermore, I agree that to use it to criticize Rico-Martínez et al. could be WP:SYNTH, as they don't obviously criticize Rico-Martínez; they just say their data isn't very useful, and they identify that Rico-Martínez et al. didn't report exposure concentrations. I'm sharing this as context.
3) A review article was written by Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho (same Clark and Coelho as 2). Again, there is conflict of interest, as Bejarano is another environmental consultant and adjunct faculty at the University of New Hampshire.
"Many believe that dispersants make oil more toxic, when in reality existing data generally do not support these claims."
In their paper, they reviewed a lot of studies which compared toxicity of Corexit-dispersed oil to toxicity of just oil: [60]
"The present review of the toxicity of oil ... that had been chemically dispersed with Corexit 9527 or Corexit 9500 (CEWAF), and oil physically or mechanically dispersed (water accommodated fraction [WAF]), reveals large discrepancies between studies reporting measured versus nominal aqueous exposure concentrations (329 WAF-CEWAF paired-data for individual species from 36 independent studies..."
"Most studies with reported measured concentrations (78% of paired-data) had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values greater than or equal to measured WAF values (lower or equal toxicity). .... By contrast, 93% of paired-data reporting nominal concentrations or loading rates had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values between 1.2 and greater than 1000-fold smaller (greater toxicity) than WAF values"
This is an important finding. Re-writing this in a simpler way for the Wikipedia article, I would like to include:
In the review of Bejarano et al., of studies that reported nominal concentrations, 93% found Corexit and oil together had synergistic toxicity; whereas of studies that reported measured concentrations, only 22% found Corexit and oil together had synergistic toxicity.
I do agree it would be WP:SYNTH to use this review to criticize Rico-Martínez directly. However, without synthesis, it makes a strong claim about synergistic toxicity between Corexit and oil - that it's probably an artifact of poor methodology. I think something like the italicized should be included in the article, along with acknowledgement of possible conflict of interest.
4) Finally, a recent study without any obvious conflict of interest, written by Canadian scientists at Queen's University.
"The chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 may not be as harmful to fish as first thought, says new research from Queen’s professor Peter Hodson and his team of researchers."
"The toxicity of dispersed oil could be attributed entirely to the effects of oil, and not to synergistic interactions between dispersant toxicity and oil toxicity," says Dr. Hodson. [61]
Use of this article was downplayed on two fronts: 1) Dr. Hodson says "could be", and 2) the university page only says "dispersant" and not "Corexit". First, I think it's clear the "could be" means "was" (i.e. they did attribute it). Use of "could be" in this way is common in scientific dialect. Second, I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to identify the "chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill" as Corexit. At this point, it's pretty clear.
In case there's any doubt about the "could be", Dr. Hodson's meaning can be verified from his own article: "Contrary to Rico-Martínez et al. [6], neither experiment in the present study was consistent with synergistic toxicity of oil and dispersant in dispersed oil mixtures. Rather, the dispersant in the mixture increased the exposure of embryos to hydrocarbons, without changing or contributing to their toxicity." [62]
I think a reasonable addition is Canadian scientists at Queen's University found that Corexit increased exposure concentration of oil, but did not increase its toxicity.
Kjhuston ( talk) 01:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the folks over at the Fringe NB said the article might should have a look at it from the NPOV board, because it was kind of weird. But as far as how we can use sources, and since we're talking about Rico-Martinez, we have:
"In 2012, a study found that Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic than oil alone,[5][6][7] and that the dispersant's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bio-available to plankton.[8] The Georgia Institute of Technology found that "Mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to ecosystems" and made the gulf oil spill worse.[9]"
This is how Rico-Martinez is presented in the article's lead. (We mention it twice, actually, in consecutive sentences.) My mention of plankton was a major compromise that went through a number of bold:revert cycles. There were accusations of greenwashing and sugar-coating just to get to this point. But it's still misleading as we have it, don't you think? Geogene ( talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Compromise OK, as my last comment on this, I'd going to say that it seems pretty clear that 1) there is a lot of controversy regarding the overall beneficial vs. negative effect of applying dispersants, and 2) this controversy exists because aquariums are woefully inadequate models for actual ecosystems. ( WP:OR doesn't mean we have to assasinate our brains SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. Good essay here WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not just any synthesis Therefore the article should reflect the uncertainty among experts on the larger point of whether the use of dispersants is overall harmful or helpful. Formerly 98 ( talk) 16:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Um, certainly it's understandable if this generates no further comment, but if anyone's willing to comment or has a suggestion for another forum, we have a disagreement over two possible sentences in which we might refer to Rico-Martinez in the Lead:
"One study has shown that the addition of Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic, and that the dispersant's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more harmful to plankton."
or
"One study has shown that the addition of Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic to plankton."
I prefer the latter, but previous "compromise" versions of the first had a "because" instead of the "and", to establish that this is only one study and it applies to plankton (though the model organisms were rotifers). That keeps getting changed to the first version above, with the "and", which is a statement with different meaning, for reasons I don't understand, but the edit summary in the last change told me to "stay closer to wording in secondary sources". So it's still a source disagreement. I think that it goes against higher principles than the primary/secondary RS guidelines to use them to include using misleading statements. I thought this had been settled but I think we put it aside to focus on other questions. Geogene ( talk) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Formerly 98 ( talk) 19:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This is obviously a self-published source. So why is it reliable? 69.183.117.146 ( talk) 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised to see a 19th century historian's book approved in RSN as a reliable source here. I am checking to see if this was a mistake or not as it is currently being used in this article. Kindly, please advise.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It's being used to source the assertion that a school "is a full k-12 school, including a high school level, and cooperates with other schools for college admissions". 71.139.142.132 ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 165 | Archive 166 | Archive 167 | Archive 168 | Archive 169 | Archive 170 | → | Archive 175 |
Is this About.com page on comfort food reliable for the list of American and Canadian comfort foods in this section of the comfort food Wikipedia article? The author of that About.com page is indicated to be a "food service industry professional" (which could mean that she could be anything from a head chef at a four-star restaurant to a burger flipper at McDonald's), but the list of comfort foods is indicated to be derived from a poll that isn't specified or linked to. Nightscream ( talk) 01:11, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
Does a reliable source reporting a story make them part of the story to the point we should specifically note their involvement? The Brendan Eich article, currently has the following text (emphasis added in bold):
In March 2012 it was publicized that in 2008 Eich had donated $1,000 to the campaign for California Proposition 8 with his employer identified as Mozilla Corporation.[11] This revelation was controversial in the tech sphere,[12] the gay press [13][14] and in social media, particularly Twitter.[15]
The 1st sentence is the subject (Eich made a political donation) and the 2nd sentence states that "This revelation was controversial" in the "tech sphere", the "gay press" and "social media". No one here is denying that A) the donation was made and B) that the donation was the subject of some controversy. However out of all the inline sources proffered none of them appear to make the claim that in particular, this controversy was of specific concern to the "tech sphere" or the "gay press". This source which is indeed from a "tech sphere" based (probably) reliable source makes due note that the donation caused a "shitstorm" on Twitter, but does not make, or even approach to make the claim that the this controversy was of any particular interest amongst the tech sphere. Similarly this and this source, both from the "gay press" report the donation, but these two sources don't even note any controversy whatsoever, much less note there was any ire from members of the "gay press".
Since none of the offered sources make note that this donation is the causing a controversy with members of the tech sphere abuzz or the gay media, I modified this text to simply read This revelation was controversial in social media, and in particular Twitter with an inline reference that directly supports this. Apparently another editor has a problem with this. My feeling is that just because a tech-oriented site and a gay-focused site report on the donation does not make them part of the story. Now if we were to have a RS reporting that the Gay Press Club (im just making this up btw) protested the donation, that would be a different story. But at the moment we don't have that. Two kinds of pork ( talk) 13:03, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
A nicely badly written series of claims which should better read:
rather than the current:
As the amount is not of any significance in the discussions, and the word "revelation" implies that it was in some way a "secret" before. There is no actual definition of "tech sphere" and the mention of "Twitter" is not actually important here. So let's try the simple wording - I think no one contests the coverage in the "gay press" or would feel it needs a separate cite. Collect ( talk) 13:46, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The users MD.ET, MUFADALQN are using following sources for the article Mufaddal Saifuddin
The http://www.badremuneer.in/62%20Reasons/53%20Reasons%20NOT.htm is an exact duplication of the self published blog http://believesyednaqutbuddin.com/ both of which are rather propoganda sources which work towards forwarding personal opinions on a heavily disputed and succession issue of Burhanuddin [3] [4] Summichum ( talk) 09:01, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Respected admins User:Callanecc Sam Sailor Anup Mehra User:Ftutocdg, the current version of the above wiki article is based on citations from badremunir which is one of the claimants own publication and the other fatemidawat.com is another claimants own publication, you can imagine the dubious nature of above source as they have duplicated the above blog on their domain to get accepted on wikipedia hence I request all statements citing the highly biased references of badremuneer be removed and remove all the claims which dont have the citations to support the claim. Also note that this is a very serious controversy and media is closely following this case as billions of dollars worth property is at stake and both the claimants are using all means possible to get control over it. hence Wiki as a champion of neutrality should not allow biased claims from sources published by both the claimants. Persisting the article with stale claims shows poor quality of the article and I request the admins to do a cleanup operation and remove superfluous,dubious claims ref: WP:RS self published source Summichum ( talk) 14:17, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
Details: The Internationally Acclaimed Monthly Magazine of The Dawoodi Bohra Community
BADRE MUNEER Neelam Publications, 2nd Floor, Nagindas Chambers, Dhebar Road, RAJKOT - 360 001 (INDIA). Phone : +91-281-2226517 / 2235056 Fax : +91-281-2223944 Mobile : +91 93757 45252
Follow them from wherever you are:
On Web: www.badremuneer.in On Facebook: www.facebook.com/badremuneer On Twitter: www.twitter.com/badremuneer On Buzz: www.google.com/profiles/badremuneer On Grouply: http://badremuneer.grouply.com On Orkut: http://www.orkut.co.in/Main#Profileuid=14396410947135118255 the-magazine-issue-with-the-highest-number-of-pages [5] -- Md iet ( talk) 14:08, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
See here: [6]. It appears that having instituted some sort of 'peer review' process, it is now being claimed that Wikiversity meets WP:RS and/or WP:MEDRS. Frankly, I see no reason to see this as remotely compatible with WP:RS policy. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:33, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
For an indication of the validity of the 'peer review' see this example being cited: [7]. A high-school project taking the average weight of 19 teaspoons. As to the remainder of citations, since the articles are medically-related (with the corresponding need for higher standards), I have raised the matter at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:41, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
Incidentally, I note that all the articles so far linked from Wikiversity seem to have been written by the same person - User:Mikael Häggström. I shall inform him of this thread. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 19:49, 30 March 2014 (UTC)
As discussed above, it seems appropriate to have a discussion in Wikipedia before any usage of a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia. I think such "nomination" can be done at Wikipedia Talk:Wikiversity and leaving a note here, as with this one: Wikipedia talk:Wikiversity#Using steroidogenesis article as reference. Mikael Häggström ( talk) 16:29, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
There are some sources used in the Deepwater Horizon Oil Spill that I'm not sure are up standards for context. I'd like feedback from the larger community.
I've bolded the part of that statement I have concerns with. The source for that is here: [13]. Since we have claims of ongoing human health issues, shouldn't this meet MEDRS standards? Is this source good enough? And shouldn't we have a source more recent if the statement applies to 2014?
I'll take my leave and I hope that your question above is answered. Geogene ( talk) 01:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
First let me say I apologize for misreading the article. It does say "polypropylene glycol" and not "propylene glycol".
But my statement essentially still stands. While the reporter states that PPG is carcinogenic, there are no studies that establish this according to EFSA and PAN.
Organic compounds that bioaccumulate do so because they are extremely water insoluble (and thus do not migrate out of fat tissues) and because they are resistant to metabolism. Chemically, these properties tend to be associated with chemicals whose structures contain a lot of halogen atoms and few or no oxygen or nitrogen atoms. Every 4th atom in polypropylene glycol is an oxygen atom. It is no more likely to bioaccumulate than a rock is to float. I listened to the entire video cited above, and nowhere in it does the EPA "admit" that PPG bioaccumulates. Formerly 98 ( talk) 08:37, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
At Wikiproject Medicine, AndyTheGrump has claimed that Wikipedia has specific policies which currently rule out using Wikiversity material as sources for article content, but I don't see such a policy. Both wp:citing sister projects and wp:Citing a wiki are just red links at this time. wp:Identifying reliable sources states that "When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications... are usually the most reliable sources", and peer-review is mandatory for articles in Wikiversity:Wikiversity Journal of Medicine. I suggest that we come to a consensus about what to write at Wikipedia:Wikiversity#Using a Wikiversity page as reference in Wikipedia, and I suggest adding "A Wikiversity page cannot be used as a reference for Wikipedia content without first having reached consensus at the reliable sources noticeboard or at the relevant WikiProject for each individual case". Mikael Häggström ( talk) 04:46, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Should The Pilgrims Would Be Shocked: The History of Thoroughbred Racing in New England by Robert Temple be considered a reliable source? The book is self published by Temple, however self-published sources are considered reliable if written by an established expert on the subject matter. According to Amazon, Temple is a former a sports writer who covered horse racing for the "Boston Herald Traveler", worked in the publicity departments of various race track, and writes for "Horse Talk", a southeastern Massachusetts horse racing publication. Does this qualify him as an expert and is this book an appropriate source for articles related to thoroughbred racing in New England (i.e. Suffolk Downs, Narragansett Race Track, Walter E. O'Hara)? -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 22:20, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
[+] another ref [*] Boulanger
My reservations are as follows:
All the best,
Rich
Farmbrough, 01:17, 8 April 2014 (UTC).
This one: http://smallbusiness.aol.com/2011/02/09/we-dont-need-no-education-meet-the-millionaire-dropouts/
Thanks! Bananasoldier ( talk) 15:13, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
1- Source: http://glottolog.org/resource/languoid/id/mero1237 2- Article: Meroitic language 3- Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Meroitic_language&diff=601316645&oldid=597844831
Hi, it has come to my attention that one user kwami added the glottolog website opinion on Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. But glottolog is not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic. I tried to reverse the edit made by kwami but my edit was undone by kwami. When I tried to ask for proof and reference demonstrating the glottolog website is a reliable source on Meroitic, I was responsed with "sure it is" and "the rest of us disagree" without such proof and references ever demonstrated.
Let's recall the WP:CONTEXTMATTERS guideline stating "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.". There's no doubt in my mind that the glottolog website can't be considered a reliable source on Meroitic or on Riley's assesment of Meroitic as it is referenced by no other source beside User:Kwamikagami and Wikipedia.
I read some academic works on Meroitic and none of them mention the glottolog website. I did a google book search on glottolog and didn't see any works using glottolog as content source at all in general, much less about Meroitic and Rilly's assessment of Meroitic. In fact, I never heard of glottolog before kwami created a wikipedia article about it on the 17 of Mars 2014 and proceed to link (almost plugging) the glottolog website in many Wikipedia articles.
My main contentious is that the glottolog website is not used as a reference on Meroitic or Rily's assesment of Meroitic by any source beside kwami and now Wikipedia. So the glottolog's website point of view on Meroitic shouldn't be added to the Wikipedia page. It's not a reliable source on Meroitic or on Rily's assessment of Meroitic. Thank you for reading me. DrLewisphd ( talk) 12:58, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
Looking at Islam-related articles I see a plethora of original research and polemic opinions and lack of neutral views. I ran into this book by Lesley Hazleton and was wondering if I could use it in the articles related to early Islamic history. Thanks.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 18:20, 8 April 2014 (UTC)
A new editor is considering the use of, for example, court documents as references in an article. These documents, not restricted to those from a court, but 'official' papers, are to be used as references in an article. They are what one might term "Official Papers."
I am unsure whether these documents form primary sources or reliable sources, or, indeed, whether their status would vary from article to article. I am aware that some may be of the calibre of Witness Statements, which, by their very nature, are flawed except to show the contents of the witness statement. Others may be the formal submission of evidence.
Please would experienced editors look at this class of reference in its broadest sense or point me at the right place to look if the discussion has been held and documented previously?
I am inviting the new editor to come here to join in with any discussion. Fiddle Faddle 09:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'd like feedback on any prior debate regarding dismissal or not of the UK's Daily Mail newspaper into the bin of tabloid journalism - Can this be considered a reliable source? Some of my fellow editors and I are in disagreement with others on the pages for Cara Delevingne and for Michelle Rodriguez, where some have noted information now bubbling out from a variety of sources about the nature of their relationship. The UK's Telegraph has been cited as reliable, whilst the Daily Mail has not. To me, clearly, the "Red top" UK tabloids are not reliable. But what of the DM, in a full-blown article (not just their celebrity gossip columns)? This is a fluid situation. Every day, it seems, more ink is spilled on this story, and because of the notoriety of the two women involved, more and more media sources are picking it up. Thank you. Jax MN ( talk) 15:03, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: In the past some editors have called it the "Daily Fail" and "Daily Heil" and have suggested that its political orientation be "extreme right wing." The fact is that the paper - like almost every newspaper which prints "celebrity news" - has been sued in the past for defamation, but that most of the PCC complaints are such stuff as (specific example) DM asserting that a great deal of waste from the UK ends up in foreign landfills, but did not properly state that the practice is illegal. For most routine matters of fact, it is just as reliable as any newspaper -- they all are fallible, but when one removes "celebrity" stuff, they all tend to be in the same field. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:10, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi! Is this online source reliable as a news source? Thanks! Bananasoldier ( talk) 04:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Oh, also, are Earth911.com and treehugger.com reliable? Thanks. Bananasoldier ( talk) 05:03, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I see the North Borneo dispute and Sultanate of Sulu articles use this source. Seems like a self published website when I see the website page icon on my browser. Any opinion about this website? Should we remove it from the article? — ᴀʟʀᴇᴀᴅʏ ʙᴏʀᴇᴅ ʜᴜʜ? 19:12, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Reliability check for this one, please. Thanks! :) Bananasoldier ( talk) 23:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Is the Office of Management and Budget a reliable source on it's own analysis of federal budget proposals?
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Paul_Ryan&oldid=603620005&diff=prev
Hcobb ( talk) 18:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Hmmm, this archiving thing is getting annoying. This continues (and hopefully concludes) part one and part two. I'm going to quote the latter some; essentially, I was addressing two topics, one is clearly more or less finished [1], the other isn't.
I figure - obviously counterfactually, but I don't care - that registration is more or less an agreement to support the policies. So I've previously put it off, and now don't want to. What I'm trying to do is find out whether anyone here, or elsewhere in Wikipedia, thinks the person who wrote State income tax#History or Half of Asia, for a Thousand Years is worth giving the kind of elementary attention to newbies that could change my mind on this. (Much of the length complained about in the second discussion's first post was requests for pointers, e.g. to *how I could find out* why DramaWiki is blacklisted. Most went unanswered; GRuban at least pointed me to some documents, though mostly ones I'd already read.)
And if the rules change from discussions like this one, I'm not seeing how. I haven't been told what's inadequate in my arguments (except that they're long); instead they get refuted by appeal to the very policies I'm arguing against. So I'm not saying that my arguments are good enough to change policies, but am saying that I don't see a mechanism here that gets policies changed.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
[1] I continue to think verifiability policy is essentially insane, but it's quite clear by now that my arguments are not going to be addressed, and my requests for justifications for the policy are not going to be answered, except to the limited extent already provided by GRuban. But a couple of detail notes:
Presumably this relies on this sentence: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." I note that the following sentence reads: "Exercise caution when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so." So where GRuban sees Rosenbaum's critical work as still OK thanks to his established bona fides, I see the specious claim that his views, if worth "reporting", will be stated by someone else. Hence citing his actual blog, as opposed to third parties mentioning it, is "discouraged", as I wrote and GRuban apparently objects to. Evidently, and this is part of what I consider insane, critical ideas are in fact judged by the same standards as scientific ones.
Does "amateurs" refer to Dramabeans writers as unpaid (which is factually untrue, as I've already mentioned) or as uneducated? If the latter, I note that Gene Siskel and Richard Roeper, neither of whom were educated in film criticism or in film, are widely cited in English Wikipedia. Just to pick critics active in Chicago when I lived there. (Huh. Neither was Jonathan Rosenbaum, nor Pauline Kael.) Oh, but wait, they were paid. Oh, but wait, so's Dramabeans. Oh, but wait, Dramabeans is self-published, and we're back in circularity!
Your most obvious way out is to point out the role of the editor; editors hired those film critics, while javabeans hired herself. So I assume much of Charles Dickens's non-fiction work, which appeared in various magazines he edited, is just as untouchable as Dramabeans? And again as to William Morris: we should rely on his works published in third-party publications, not on News from Nowhere, to get at his real views, right? because he was the latter's only editor. [2] Oh, and again: the one thing a Wikipedian on William Blake must not do is consult the original editions, because those were self-published, right?
javabeans and girlfriday are editors to the other writers at Dramabeans. So are those writers OK to cite, just not the two who run the site?
[2] Sigh. Morris was editor and publisher of Commonweal, where the serial version of News from Nowhere began appearing in January 1890, until May of that year, when David Nicoll replaced him as editor but not as publisher. Morris and Nicoll disagreed considerably, and it isn't at all obvious to me that Nicoll would have edited News in any meaningful way while it continued, until October. It appeared, revised, in book form May 1891. Sources: pp. 580ff in William Morris: A Life for Our Time by Fiona MacCarthy, 1995, and relevant entries in A Bibliography of William Morris by Eugene LeMire, 2006. Does this mean that if News is cited as representing Morris's views, it should only be to the May-October 1890 issues of Commonweal, and not to the book version or the first part of the serial?
128.95.223.129 ( talk) 04:38, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The main issue is that I've been asking, for about a month now, for either discussion of the policies you're citing, a pointer to a more appropriate place for such discussion, or a pointer to existing written explanations of why they have to be the way they are. None has been offered, nor have I found the latter on my own, and the conclusion I came to early, that Wikipedia's verifiability policy is nothing but a very strange game whose rewards don't measure up to its challenges, remains, against all my expectations, unrefuted. I know that my standards of evidence are both vastly looser and vastly tighter than Wikipedia's, and don't know why I should adapt.
So I'm done. I'm not feeling childish enough to go and wipe out all the work I've done on Wikipedia to date, to the extent I can find it, but here's a list of the main items in case someone else wants to protect the encyclopaedia from my flawed understanding of how it should be written:
Note that while the first, essentially a synopsis of a non-fiction work, and the last, based on a raft of "unreliable" sources, are easily challenged, you'll have to get more creative when it comes to the income tax section. I'd suggest lack of interest as the obvious reason to delete it, if one's wanted; it's been around long enough that if it'd had significant readership, it ought not remain essentially all my work.
At any rate, nobody need fear any more of my writing here.
Joe Bernstein joe@sfbooks.com
66.212.73.202 ( talk) 01:43, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Over a period of years, various algorithms to determine whether a year in the Gregorian calendar is a leap year have been added to Leap year and repeatedly disputed my many editors. User Kriceslo claims that an algorithm the editor wrote is from a reliable source because the editor had previously posted it to Stack Overflow. I contend that while Stack Overflow may offer useful suggestions to programmers with the expertise to evaluate which posts are correct and which are erroneous, for Wikipedia purposes it is user-generated content, self-published, and the authors are not demonstrably experts in their respective fields (which means, for Wikipedia purposes, having published in reliable, non-self-published, sources in the relevant field). I think in this case, because of the frequent disputes, the source be obviously reliable to nearly any reader who comes along.
The talk page discussion is at Talk:Leap year#Demand reliable algorithm source. Jc3s5h ( talk) 14:24, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Ok, how about this:
For civil use (as opposed to ecclesiastical use), leap years are calculated as follows:
Every year that is exactly divisible by 4 is a leap year, except for years that are exactly divisible by 100; these centurial years are leap years only if they are exactly divisible by 400. [1]
Lesser Cartographies ( talk) 17:36, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
Trying to nail down a source for a "definitive algorithm" is probably unnecessary. What needs to be sourced (and is already sourced) is the definition of the Gregorian leap year. The translation from this to pseudo-code is not hard, and the version currently displayed is correct, transparent, and reasonably efficient. (I agree with Jc3s5h that the algorithm section needs a bit more documentation.) It wouldn't hurt to reference actual code, but the version displayed in the article need not be identical, as the source would likely be tied to a specific programming language and might require additional explanation or interpretation. I do not regard Jc3s5h's complaint as a problem: yes, the article is often edited by well-meaning but misguided editors; but it is always corrected in relatively short order. This is no different from countless WP articles, and as we all know, even a sterling source will not forestall this. If Jc3s5h is primarily concerned about the authority of the correction, it would suffice to add an HTML comment to the algorithm indicating that it is the result of consensus on the talk page and that suggested changes should be discussed there first. -- Elphion ( talk) 16:06, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm interested in using this YouTube video [20] of a local singing competition, to state that Scotty McCreery's parents had him take sixth months of piano, before letting him learn guitar (discussed in the introductory remarks from around 0:42 to 0:52). I'm not sure who took the video - it could have just been someone in the audience or it could have been someone involved with the event. This seems to be the only place that the video is available online, so it might be fair to assume that it was taken by the same person that uploaded it. However, I'm not sure what to make of the characters in the top left corner.
The information presented in this video is clearly accurate, since McCreery himself appears in the video. However, since it was simply uploaded onto a personal account, by someone who doesn't seem have any established credibility, I'm not sure that the video would be acceptable as a reference under normal circumstances. However, there's one thing that makes me think that it might be okay - the video was linked to from the town government's official website [21] (Second paragraph - "Here he is on the stage of the Clayton Center").
What's the typical policy on using these types of videos, and how is the video's reliability effected (if at all) by it being linked to by an official website? -- Jpcase ( talk) 19:54, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
There is a dispute at Talk:Crimean status referendum, 2014#Observers and legitimacy, whether many citations of RT news (a source biased in favor of Russian government) can be removed from the article without explaining each particular instance removal. For example, one of the statements that some editors are trying to remove completely, is this:
A day before the election, the Crimean election spokesman Mikhail Malyshev said that 135 international observers from 23 countries were registered to monitor the referendum, [1] [2] [3]
— Petr Matas 20:26, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
Why do you refer to RT as biased in favour of the Russian Government? Would you say that the BBC is in favour of the British Government? How about CNN as in favour of the American Government? Look at all these sources and identify which impartially reported on the US - Iraq war and the claim of weapons of mass destruction. If you are claiming that RT's reports regarding the Crimean crisis are non-factual then provide evidence. In particular look at the activity of Volunteer Marek on the Crimea pages - removes anything which puts some balance in the article.
— equilibrado 7 April 2014
There are controversial facts and there are non-controversial facts. For controversial facts RT is most certainty not a reliable source: [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36]. It could be used for non-controversial facts (indeed on the Crimean Referendum where RT was used to cite non-controversial facts I left it alone). The thing is, if a fact really is non-controversial, then 99 times out of a 100 one can find a more solid, really reliable source. And replace.
Additionally, there's really no reason to try and include more than at most two citations to any piece of text. You know, don't do cite-padding like this "blah blah blah [1][2][3][4][5][6][7]". That just looks bad and betrays a certain kind of desperate attempt to push some POV. Hence if there's already solid, reliable sources used to cite something, an additional source such as RT is simply not necessary. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 05:29, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
I agree that more than two refs can be excessive but it may be appropriate to have RT as one of them. My personal rule, not particularly for wikipedia, is that if a 'Western' source and RT agree then something is likely to be true, for everything controversial I have to choose between them. We should bear in mind that Russian sources were highlighting the involvement of Pravy Sektor for some weeks before 'Weestern' Sources really picked up on this. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 06:15, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Maybe if RT says something and others neither agree nor oppose, then we shoud write "RT says...," as their report may be unreliable, but it is surely notable: There are zillions of people who believe it. — Petr Matas 17:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The most recent edition of Private Eye, arguably the best investigative journalism periodical in the UK, described RT as "Putin's propaganda channel". I don't think it can be considered to be a reliable source for anything concerning Russia or something the Russian government has a strong opinion on. Number 5 7 20:57, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Why would any newspaper misreport on a statement made by person X, if the newspaper is biased in favor of X? — Petr Matas 23:45, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
The same issues are coming up at Ukrainian Revolution with references from RT removed without consideration of context. Sceptic1954 ( talk) 06:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
Russians say the US/EU news are biased, the US/EU say the Russian news are biased. Who's correct? Its essentially like the Cold War: both sides introduce a slant to support their case. And frankly I myself have noted many instances of uniform media bias in US/EU media. The point is: its not up to us to decide which country can or can not publish sources for use on Wikipedia.
The concept that "media not directly owned by the government must be neutral" is a massive non sequitur. Even if we were to assume there was no way for governments and corporations to carrot-and-stick media outlets (which is silly), its still in the interest of the media conglomerates to support their own country/block of countries. Its in the interest of the EU to bring (as much as possible of) Ukraine into its sphere. Its ultimately in the interest of EU media corporations to support that endeavor. There's really no room for that sort of naïveté regarding either side. None of them are really THIRDPARTY.
Imo the best thing to do is to simply attribute both sides. That is to say: "Russian government or media media sources say" and "EU/US government or media sources state", etc. -- Director ( talk) 18:35, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
A new user, Bakaso, has come to the Talk:Frankfurt School conspiracy theory page and is asking that the sources be qualified as coming from Jewish Marxist scholars, extremist sources, and identifying the Southern Poverty Law Center as an extremist source. They believe that the conspiracy theory itself is a conspiracy theory by neo-Marxists to cover up their Frankfurt School roots. They believe that the entire article is opinion, and therefore falls under the WP:YESPOV opinion as facts. I disagree but would like some input as to if we should qualify the religion, ideology, and name of the sources within the text. Coffeepusher ( talk) 21:29, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over the pronunciation of Aram Khachaturian's name in English.
At least four sources use "AH-rahm KAH-chah-TOOR-yahn" as the pronunciation of his name:
Are these sources reliable? At least two of them (Well-tempered & Grolier) are academic.
Question: Is the pronunciation used by these sources notable/significant/relevant enough to be included in the article alongside the (apparently more common) pronunciation used by generic dictionaries? -- Երևանցի talk 01:23, 12 April 2014 (UTC)
Is US Weekly reliable? I only saw one discussion about it in the archives Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 112#US Weekly and People magazine - one person said that they "wouldn't count on" it, while the other person said that it would depend on the context. I'm wanting to use this article [42] to say that Scotty McCreery's first job was at a car shop (and possibly say one or two other things about him.) Would that be alright? -- Jpcase ( talk) 14:39, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Are government sources considered reliable sources regarding issues of government over their own country? At issue is whether the Russian government is a reliable source about whether Crimea and Stevastapol are considered federal subjects of Russia. Specific edit in question is here. Source in question is http://kremlin.ru/news/20605. See Talk:Russia#Number_of_federal_subjects for context. EvergreenFir ( talk) 02:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Changing the word "including" to "counting" might alleviate the slant, somewhat. Howunusual ( talk) 22:20, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, I and @ Yambaram: are in conflict against users @ Huldra: and @ Bjerrebæk: who thinks that our edit here is fringed. The edit have more then enough sources which indicate that the former PM of Norway said an anti-semitic remark. The sources include: The Jerusalem Post, Arutz Sheva, FrontPage Magazine and JNS.org. According to our reliable sources policy we as Wikipedians rely on "newspapers, magazines, books, and media", to make a balanced and neutral article, and the above sources fit that bill perfectly. However, the two (and one neutral) users believe that the sources are extremist and far right. My questions is, if they are extremist and fringed why do are they not blacklisted and if they are considered to be an RS (if they do), why is the sourced material being removed over fringe and POV allegations if the material is sourced from a reliable source and not a personal blog? Or the policy to what is, and what is not considered to be a reliable source have changed over one article? I seen The Jerusalem Post being used more then on one article relating to Israeli leaders, therefore makes it an RS. Or now while JPost is an RS to Israeli-Palestinian articles it is not an RS for Norway related articles? If so, I don't see a paragraph in reliable sources policy which indicate that source should only be in native language or express the view of only (in this case) Norwegians, by using Norge language newspapers? It does said that "it is preferred" but its not mandatory. Now, to get the full picture, we have this discussion on one of the users talkpage here, on the article's talkpage here and two notice boards here and here. I hope that this confusion will soon be solved, because as of now as a new editor (in POV field), I think that I am being falsely accused of reverting removal of sourced content.-- Mishae ( talk) 23:18, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
Whether a specific news story is reliable for a specific fact or statement in a Wikipedia article will be assessed on a case-by-case basis.Also look at WP:BIASED as even if a source is generally reliable, it may be reporting an opinion that is fringe or could be given WP:UNDUE weight compared to the bulk of other reliable sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:30, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
...the rule states that as long as its not self published, its O.K.This is not what is meant by our policies at all. Some of the sources you mention would be considered WP:QUESTIONABLE, lacking reputations for reliability and fact-checking, and you would need to make a convincing case that they could be used specifically for a deeply contentious claim about a living person. I think you are highly unlikely to convince many editors that these sources represent a mainstream and neutral view on whether someone is an anti-semite, especially as the issue seems to be what wasn't said by the subject at an event. Saying that a failure to verbally denounce a pro-Palestinian rally as being anti-Semitic is somehow actual proof that someone is personally anti-Semitic is the view of a tiny minority. If you can't find consensus that it is not being given WP:UNDUE weight or that it's free of WP:BLP concerns, it probably won't end up in the article the way you've suggested. That might be as it should be.
To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject.You would need much more clearly reliable sources to assert what you were adding is a widely significant interpretation of this BLP. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:45, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I made this edit at the Trans-Pacific Partnership page and it was removed apparently because the source isn't the New York Times, CNN and so forth. Can I use this article by the Republic Report since it's based on and provides links to documents and mainstream press reports?-- The Best There Is 'Snikt!' ( talk) 16:11, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
1. "The Great Book of Bulldogs, Bull Terrier and Molosser: Part I Bulldogs & Bull Terrier" by Zwettler, M Publisher=epubli GmbH, isbn=9783844239225 http://books.google.ca/books?id=hz9WeFoj1pIC No page numbers that I can see in the Google view. A search for Leavitt Bulldog will lead to both the Olde English Bulldogge and Leavitt Bulldog section.
3.
It is one of several breeds developed in order to overcome the genetic problems in the English Bulldog breed
The source makes statements along these lines under the Olde English Bulldogge section, but not within the Leavitt Bulldog section. The Leavitt Bulldog section states he renamed his original breed to avoid association with "other alternative breeders" using the same name for their dogs. I think my larger question is how valid is the source in the first place? It doesn't seem to be self-published, but it is only available as an ebook and by a German publisher I have no information on aside from their website. The grammatical errors make it obvious that the writer was not a native English-speaker who had no editorial support and/or used translation software that didn't do such a good job. I have identified a couple of factual errors within the two sections of the book referenced as well. Ss 051 ( talk) 13:42, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
Source : Mitannian (Armenian) origin
Article : Aleppo
Content : Parshatatar, king of the Hurrian Armenian kingdom of Mitanni
Case : this claim and source was discussed in the Talk:Mitanni#Regarding Petrie source in Historical Context, it was refused and the Mitanni page doesn't mention mitanni as an Armenian country, is that source reliable and enough to support the claim that Mitanni is an Armenian state , does the source mention this as a fact and does it mention specifically that mitanni is Armenian?? and if it does, is it consistence with academic consensus about mitanni ?? Thanks -- Attar-Aram syria ( talk) 15:53, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
( edit conflict)The issue as I see it is that Aleppo had a sentence that started " Parshatatar, king of the Hurrian Armenian kingdom of Mitanni," and was sourced to a book by Leonard William King which IMHO is not a reliable source for this claim that Mitanni was an Armenian kingdom. There has been a problem with an IP hopper recently over this so I suggested RNS not as a solution to an IP hopper but just as a check. This is a contentious area (I mean articles relating to Armenia) and we would need very good sources starting with a similar statement at Mitanni saying it was an Armenian kingdom. Note also that Parshatatar doesn't claim it was Armenian. Dougweller ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Are the online magazines at historynet.com considered WP reliable sources. If this is not the right place, where can I find out? Hmains ( talk) 02:31, 14 April 2014 (UTC)
I've been seeing efforts by various IPs and a seemingly connected user to add references or external links to http://www.hnkcnews.com (e.g. [44] [45] [46] search). Is this considered acceptable for references/external links? If not, can someone do the needful? Thank you, – xeno talk 15:06, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Source: http://thediplomat.com/2014/01/thailand-on-the-brink/2/
Nominated source #1: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-02-04/thai-crisis-splits-families-as-bunker-mentality-deters-stability.html
Nominated source #2: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/01/14/world/asia/thailand-unrest-analysis-marshall/
Article: 2013-14 Thai political crisis
Content:
a hidden agenda: the royal succession
I am having trouble dealing with one of the page I am editing. I am not sure I am heading to the right direction anymore in the talk page so I would like to seek some opinion here.
In short, the claim is that the leader of the ongoing protest in Thailand is having a hidden agenda for (or against? they did not tell) the royal succession. The writer put it in in the form of factual statement and claiming that the specified source, among other sources, is a reliable source for this fact. When I opened the discussion, they nominated more sources as I specified and tell that those sources are reliable sources to support the claim.
My argument against this is those are opinion and conjecture and does not directly support the content, hence not the reliable source for the content. They are only reliable source for their opinion.
They also claim the news author cannot provide concrete evidence for that claim because of Thailand's lese majesty law, and I would object that incomplete information is incomplete no matter what the reason is.
Any opinion support or against my argument are welcome. Thank you. -- Biglobster ( talk) 17:57, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
On the Elton Mayo article a recent discussion has taken place regarding a 2004 edit, here: [49] which appears quite correct, based on a number of reliable sources, that Elton Mayo was indeed a psychologist.
In fact, specifically the reliable sources say an Australian born psychologist. I cited these sources below as examples. But there are many more. However the other editor again deleted them, see here: [50] and so here we are.
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541 http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767 Australian Cultural History (1988) edited by Samuel Louis Goldberg, Francis Barrymore Smith (page 95)
A brief discussion has ensued on the Talk:Elton Mayo page, however it has got nowhere, and rather than even get close to edit warring on this issue (I have not reverted again), I'm posting it here instead to get a wider perspective from some independent editors. The other editor has instead added the terms "researcher" and "organization theorist"? without any reliable sources as far as I can tell?
Hopefully some experienced editors can take a look please, and decide on whether the placement of this "Elton Mayo (Australian born) psychologist" statement in the article lead is justified based on the reliable sources provided? I'll accept whatever outcome is decided on this RS issue. Thanks. Mrm7171 ( talk) 06:45, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/371017/Elton-Mayo
http://adb.anu.edu.au/biography/mayo-george-elton-7541
https://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Elton_Mayo
http://www.termpaperwarehouse.com/essay-on/Elton-Mayo/158890
http://www.samemory.sa.gov.au/site/page.cfm?u=437&c=3767
http://www.nndb.com/people/043/000119683/bibliography/
http://persona.rin.ru/eng/view/f/0/36377/Elton-Mayo--George-Elton-Mayo-
As far as i remember, we mentioned Elton Mayo as a "psychologist" in industrial and organizational psychology lecture at university. But i am going to check the notes. Maybe it helps. Lamedumal ( talk) 00:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Note: Contributing the psychology does not mean being a psychologist or, in other words, does not make one a psychologist. Lamedumal ( talk) 22:35, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
I opened a discussion recently regarding the reliability of this website; no consensus was reached, actually. This website I'm mentioning is called Idolator ( can be found here) and is published by Spin Media (to which I have mixed considerations, as they publish some decidedly reputable works and sites, such as Spin, AbsolutePunk and PopMatters however they are also the publishers of Under the Gun Review and other Kardashian websites which are considered unreliable). Relatively to the writers—95% of the articles used in my article Trouble (Natalia Kills album) are written by their associate editor Sam Lansky which also works for Time and MTV while he has also written for New York magazine and The Atlantic. Two of the sources used in my article are from that website as well but written by Mike Wass (who I believe only works at Idolator however I have no problem with his writing style). Idolator is used in a lot of GAs however people tend to remove those sources when trying to make them FAs.
Well, the problem with my article is that it addresses an album which was not recognized by the general music press (I'm talking about websites like MTV, Rolling Stone, etc.); it also had a weak commercial performance. Basically, the only reputable sources that address the album are (aside from Idolator) AllMusic (review), Digital Spy (vaguely, just an interview with Natalia Kills), Billboard (vague coverage as well) and The New Zealand Herald (review as well). In January, I promoted the article to GA-class and my goal is to have it go FA-class, however I would not be able to further promote its class without the Idolator sources as they would remove a lot of valuable information from the article. Thank you for reading and please comment. ( @ WikiRedactor, XXSNUGGUMSXX, Tomica, STATicVapor, HĐ, and JennKR: Could you guys please comment here? Thanks :) ) prism △ 17:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
Hi, this question is about how to use reliable sources, rather than about any particular source. Must a sentence in a Wikipedia article be fully supported by each of the footnotes at the end? Or is it enough that the combination of footnotes at the end supports the sentence (e.g. the first footnote supports the first phrase, the second footnote supports the second phrase, et cetera)? I am pretty sure what the answer is, but another editor (Lightbreather) seems to have a different view. Anythingyouwant ( talk) 00:08, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
WP:SYNTH would lean towards the first interpretation, but if you break the phrases into sentences, that issue goes away. Making a conclusion not supported by a source is WP:OR. Providing the evidence and having the user come to that conclusion on their own is not. If at least one source supports the entire thing, then there is no WP:SYNTH - at that point sources that do not support the whole thing may be used to buttress the individual points that they do support, but the "conclusion" or linking must be supported separately by at least one.. Gaijin42 ( talk) 01:22, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
It is illegal to steal candy in Maryland.(Sourced) Mr Green was seen with candy on Sunday.(Sourced) The police are looking for candy-thieves.(Sourced)or something like
Mr Green's goldfish died.(Sourced) Mr Green said "I am very happy." (Sourced statement not about his goldfish.)It's about whether an original idea not advanced in the individual sources (Mr Green steals candy, hates goldfish) is being insinuated rather than whether the ideas are separated by periods, semi-colons, or the word "and". As Gaijin says, any "conclusion" advanced must be supported by a source; this is still true when the conclusion is strongly and clearly insinuated with juxtaposed sentences. (And to be clear, I'm not saying that every juxtaposition of sourced individual sentences are WP:OR, just that some are.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 12:34, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
These RfCs are largely WP:RS and WP:V related...
There are two RfCs in which your participation would be greatly appreciated:
Thank you. -- Lightbreather ( talk) 17:34, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Looking for email address or phone number for ‘Phillip Taylor': Serviced US Embassy as Vice Counsel in Medellin Colombia in 1970"s moved to DC after leaving Medellin Colombia, his sister Kathy was living in New York city in the middle of the 1976’s-1979’s etc.
Elizabeth
We have a disagreement over at Talk:Corexit on the use of sources that we feel warrants outside opinions. We already have article content on a study by Rico-Martinez et. al. that asserts that adding Corexit makes oil 52 times more toxic than the oil was alone. This result has been criticized in various places by scientific community due to perceived methodological shortcomings (some of the rebuttals are written by scientists with a potential COI). Two of us would like to add this additional information to put Rico-Martinez into context. The use of these sources is opposed by others on the grounds that use of multiple sources in showing that would be WP:SYNTH, picking one idea from one place, another idea, and adding them together to create a third conclusion not found in any source. I don't think that's the case. I think Rico-Martinez is somewhat disputable and that Corexit didn't necessarily create synergistic toxicity.
The sources we'd like to use are:
(I believe this might be secondary, because it's a rebuttal of one paper by another group one step removed) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0269749113000705
(I believe this is secondary because it's a review of the existing literature on the topic) http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/etc.2501/full
Media coverage: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/03/140306095400.htm
Media coverage: http://phys.org/news/2013-12-oil-dispersants-marine-life.html
I'm hoping someone will better flesh out the opposing view. Geogene ( talk) 23:45, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
I'll add my two cents, as I'm the other at Talk:Corexit trying to include criticism of the Rico-Martinez study.
There are four sources in discussion:
1) A toxicology study by Rico-Martínez et al. [57] claiming that Corexit made oil 52x more toxic to rotifers (which GA Tech's media center turned into just 52x more toxic [58]) was widely publicized in 2013. It is cited in oil dispersants and Deepwater Horizon oil spill, including the lead paragraph of the latter. The study by Rico-Martínez was published in Environmental Pollution journal.
2) In that same journal, a commentary by Coelho, Clark, and Aurand [59] was published later in 2013 that criticized the study. From the abstract of this commentary:
"The 2013 Rico-Martínez et al. publication utilized laboratory testing approaches that severely limit our ability to reliably extrapolate such results to meaningful real-world assessments....Further, they drew real-world conclusions from static exposure tests without reporting actual exposure concentrations."
It was pointed out that Coelho, Clark, and Aurand work for HDR Ecosystem Management, a consulting firm that has worked for BP, Chevron, ExxonMobile, NOAA, EPA, the UN, and more, suggesting possible conflict of interest of Coelho. Furthermore, I agree that to use it to criticize Rico-Martínez et al. could be WP:SYNTH, as they don't obviously criticize Rico-Martínez; they just say their data isn't very useful, and they identify that Rico-Martínez et al. didn't report exposure concentrations. I'm sharing this as context.
3) A review article was written by Bejarano, Clark, and Coelho (same Clark and Coelho as 2). Again, there is conflict of interest, as Bejarano is another environmental consultant and adjunct faculty at the University of New Hampshire.
"Many believe that dispersants make oil more toxic, when in reality existing data generally do not support these claims."
In their paper, they reviewed a lot of studies which compared toxicity of Corexit-dispersed oil to toxicity of just oil: [60]
"The present review of the toxicity of oil ... that had been chemically dispersed with Corexit 9527 or Corexit 9500 (CEWAF), and oil physically or mechanically dispersed (water accommodated fraction [WAF]), reveals large discrepancies between studies reporting measured versus nominal aqueous exposure concentrations (329 WAF-CEWAF paired-data for individual species from 36 independent studies..."
"Most studies with reported measured concentrations (78% of paired-data) had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values greater than or equal to measured WAF values (lower or equal toxicity). .... By contrast, 93% of paired-data reporting nominal concentrations or loading rates had CEWAF LC50|EC50 values between 1.2 and greater than 1000-fold smaller (greater toxicity) than WAF values"
This is an important finding. Re-writing this in a simpler way for the Wikipedia article, I would like to include:
In the review of Bejarano et al., of studies that reported nominal concentrations, 93% found Corexit and oil together had synergistic toxicity; whereas of studies that reported measured concentrations, only 22% found Corexit and oil together had synergistic toxicity.
I do agree it would be WP:SYNTH to use this review to criticize Rico-Martínez directly. However, without synthesis, it makes a strong claim about synergistic toxicity between Corexit and oil - that it's probably an artifact of poor methodology. I think something like the italicized should be included in the article, along with acknowledgement of possible conflict of interest.
4) Finally, a recent study without any obvious conflict of interest, written by Canadian scientists at Queen's University.
"The chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010 may not be as harmful to fish as first thought, says new research from Queen’s professor Peter Hodson and his team of researchers."
"The toxicity of dispersed oil could be attributed entirely to the effects of oil, and not to synergistic interactions between dispersant toxicity and oil toxicity," says Dr. Hodson. [61]
Use of this article was downplayed on two fronts: 1) Dr. Hodson says "could be", and 2) the university page only says "dispersant" and not "Corexit". First, I think it's clear the "could be" means "was" (i.e. they did attribute it). Use of "could be" in this way is common in scientific dialect. Second, I don't think it's WP:SYNTH to identify the "chemical dispersant used to counteract the Deepwater Horizon oil spill" as Corexit. At this point, it's pretty clear.
In case there's any doubt about the "could be", Dr. Hodson's meaning can be verified from his own article: "Contrary to Rico-Martínez et al. [6], neither experiment in the present study was consistent with synergistic toxicity of oil and dispersant in dispersed oil mixtures. Rather, the dispersant in the mixture increased the exposure of embryos to hydrocarbons, without changing or contributing to their toxicity." [62]
I think a reasonable addition is Canadian scientists at Queen's University found that Corexit increased exposure concentration of oil, but did not increase its toxicity.
Kjhuston ( talk) 01:40, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
One of the folks over at the Fringe NB said the article might should have a look at it from the NPOV board, because it was kind of weird. But as far as how we can use sources, and since we're talking about Rico-Martinez, we have:
"In 2012, a study found that Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic than oil alone,[5][6][7] and that the dispersant's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more bio-available to plankton.[8] The Georgia Institute of Technology found that "Mixing oil with dispersant increased toxicity to ecosystems" and made the gulf oil spill worse.[9]"
This is how Rico-Martinez is presented in the article's lead. (We mention it twice, actually, in consecutive sentences.) My mention of plankton was a major compromise that went through a number of bold:revert cycles. There were accusations of greenwashing and sugar-coating just to get to this point. But it's still misleading as we have it, don't you think? Geogene ( talk) 22:58, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
Compromise OK, as my last comment on this, I'd going to say that it seems pretty clear that 1) there is a lot of controversy regarding the overall beneficial vs. negative effect of applying dispersants, and 2) this controversy exists because aquariums are woefully inadequate models for actual ecosystems. ( WP:OR doesn't mean we have to assasinate our brains SYNTH is original research by synthesis, not synthesis per se. Good essay here WP:SYNNOT#SYNTH is not just any synthesis Therefore the article should reflect the uncertainty among experts on the larger point of whether the use of dispersants is overall harmful or helpful. Formerly 98 ( talk) 16:09, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
Um, certainly it's understandable if this generates no further comment, but if anyone's willing to comment or has a suggestion for another forum, we have a disagreement over two possible sentences in which we might refer to Rico-Martinez in the Lead:
"One study has shown that the addition of Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic, and that the dispersant's emulsifying effect makes oil droplets more harmful to plankton."
or
"One study has shown that the addition of Corexit made the oil up to 52 times more toxic to plankton."
I prefer the latter, but previous "compromise" versions of the first had a "because" instead of the "and", to establish that this is only one study and it applies to plankton (though the model organisms were rotifers). That keeps getting changed to the first version above, with the "and", which is a statement with different meaning, for reasons I don't understand, but the edit summary in the last change told me to "stay closer to wording in secondary sources". So it's still a source disagreement. I think that it goes against higher principles than the primary/secondary RS guidelines to use them to include using misleading statements. I thought this had been settled but I think we put it aside to focus on other questions. Geogene ( talk) 17:07, 17 April 2014 (UTC)
Formerly 98 ( talk) 19:37, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
This is obviously a self-published source. So why is it reliable? 69.183.117.146 ( talk) 18:08, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
I was surprised to see a 19th century historian's book approved in RSN as a reliable source here. I am checking to see if this was a mistake or not as it is currently being used in this article. Kindly, please advise.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 23:50, 21 April 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? It's being used to source the assertion that a school "is a full k-12 school, including a high school level, and cooperates with other schools for college admissions". 71.139.142.132 ( talk) 20:21, 22 April 2014 (UTC)