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 170 | ← | Archive 172 | Archive 173 | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | Archive 176 | → | Archive 180 |
So every can understand the context, this section is from the National Rifle Association article... -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Are the sources given with this text reliable?
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 16:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Added attribution. [1] Lightbreather ( talk) 17:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
There has been a disagreement over several pages relating to economics concepts, particularly those that Marx touched on. I have been removing quite a lot of content which was unsourced, or which took a passing mention in a source and spun into a bigger essay, or which misinterpreted sources (usually trying to reframe things from a marxist perspective, which fails
WP:NPOV). Some of the content is blatantly false, like
this. However,
Jurriaan (
talk ·
contribs) disagrees, reverting my edits en masse as "vandalism". I have tried to approach this on some of the articles' talkpages, but Jurriaan's line of argument is that I'm a "vandal" and "scam editor", so we're not making much progress. The sheer volume of unsourced and mis-sourced content makes it impractical to pick out short examples, but
this is representative. Would any other uninvolved editors like to contribute?
The affected pages include:
Any suggestions? bobrayner ( talk) 00:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
So every can understand the context, this section is from the National Rifle Association article... -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Are the sources given with this text reliable?
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 16:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the point or purpose of stating and stating and restating that actions of Senator would be graded by the NRA in the same section over and over again? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to confirm that book reviews of H-Soz-u-Kult (History Department of the Humboldt University of Berlin) are reliable.
I am working on User:WhisperToMe/The Chinese in Latin America and the Caribbean, and if this review is reliable it means the book is eligible for a Wikipedia article (there is one more independent source). WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the prose at "TheSupermodelsGallery.com" considered reliable. He is there about us page: http://www.thesupermodelsgallery.com/about/#.U8Bar7FCfl4-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
So every can understand the context, this section is from the National Rifle Association article... -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Are the sources attached to this text reliable?
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 16:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Up at the top of this page it says:
The last two don't apply, so I'm going to focus on the other two. The WP:V policy says there are three types of sources: publisher, creator (writer), and type of work. Mainstream newspapers are included among reliable sources. Many respected mainstream news organizations use the Sunlight Foundation as a source. Under WP:RS, it says about news organizations: "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." The Sunlight Foundation, The Hill, and the Washington Post publish corrections. Although the sources I gave include some (very little) opinion, they mostly present factual information - numbers - researched by someone (as I shared above) who holds a PhD in poli-sci and has worked as a research fellow at several institutions. In other words, the Sunlight Foundation and Lee Drutman are absolutely WP:V, WP:RS. So what this basically boils down to is, do you think there is some error in the factual information given; or rather, do you have equally reliable sources who says there is an error with the information given? Again, absent that, there is no question of reliability. Lightbreather ( talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
DoneDeleted two of the three sources [19] and added/attributed source's opinion about what the factual information cited means. [20] Lightbreather ( talk) 17:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If the primary source material that the cited articles are based upon is questionable, then is lessens the credibility of the entire chain of research. Regardless of what consensus is regarding Sunlight, its still questionable material because its based on OpenSecrets.org data, plain and simple. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is Rsvlts.com a reliable source?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
1) Source. [21] 2) Article. Russo-Georgian War. 3) Content.
Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region
.
Is user-generated http://www.strava.com/segments/green-power-50km-6512953 reliable enough to back up a claim that Hong Kong Trail is only 43 km, contrary to what its official website says? I'm asking on behalf of a new editor who raised this question on my talk page. — Lucas Thoms 13:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have strong concerns about using Perverted-Justice.com as a source on BLP articles or in reference to living persons. For example, on To Catch a Predator:
John Kennelly was also significant given that he was caught by Dateline and Hansen twice during the same operation: first at the undercover house, where he appeared naked to meet an underage child, and then again less than 24 hours later at a McDonald's fast food restaurant in the Rosslyn neighborhood.<ref>http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=SpecialGuy29</ref>
From what I can tell from their about page, the website is a group of dedicating to catching people who target minors for sexual encounters online. They gather evidence of illegal behaviors and submit them to police. However, their evidence is just accusations that may lead to an arrest which may lead to a conviction. This goes against WP:BLPCRIME. There is no editorial oversight or third-party oversight. They have been accused of libel in multiple jurisdictions ( http://www.perverted-justice.com/?pg=lawyerinfo).
In my opinion, this website should never be used as a source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As I have pointed out here, an IDF image used for propaganda is placed in the article. It not only violates WP:SOURCE, but also WP:NPOV. I want to be confirmed that
-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I just started a RfC on the Gaza War talkpage. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 08:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
If a journalist who collaborates with the author of a work publishes an article about the author in a different media, can that newspaper article be used as a reliable source about the author without disclosing the connection between the two?
Aja Romano from the Daily Dot has been writing articles about her Anita Sarkeesian, author of the Feminist Frequency blog where Aja "has been a regular contributor". [22] [23] These articles are being used at at Wikipedia articles Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and Anita Sarkeesian, a WP:BLP. (The connection between Romano and Sarkeesian has been removed from the former as "not relevant"). Can the source be used without notice at the Reception section of those articles? Diego ( talk) 06:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out whether a book is self-published or not. The company is called Betterway Home Books and this is the book in question. At the end of the cited passage, it notes: "for more information, head to SimpleMom.net [the author's blog] and search oil cleansing method" This leads me to believe it is not WP:Reliable. Thoughts? - Sweet Nightmares 20:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Is a staff blog hosted by staff of the Office of Information Technologies at UMass Amherst. Context is whether this blog could be considered reliable for the purposes of referring to a software package as malware on the MacKeeper article. The subject posting is: [25].-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 06:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
WOT Services is a crowdsourced Internet website reputation rating tool. Can we consider it reliable. Intent is to employ it on MacKeeper under the reviews section to demonstrate that certain areas of the public have less than positive sentiments regarding the software.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 06:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The subject site is a website administered by Thomas Reed who writes about Mac (OSX) malware. The site is entirely of his own (Thomas Reed) production. Far as I can tell, no other Wikipedia articles cite the website. The intent is to employ it in the reviews section of MacKeeper as the minority viewpoint but I have no indication that this site is generally accepted as an authority on the subject. The subject article is: [26].-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 06:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I’m currently a stay-at-home dad, but have a history of working in Mac tech support at a couple universities, running a small software development business, writing for a developer magazine (REALbasic Developer, now renamed xDev) and even a brief stint at teaching. I am mostly self-taught on the topics discussed on this site, but have spent years developing my expertise in these areas.
In an article I intend on writing, but haven't written yet ( Asher Eder, in case anyone is interested), I have very few reliable sources for the subject's death. The only marginally reliable source is an article on the website of an organization Eder was associated with ( Lotem.net - Hebrew). However, only the year of death is given. The only online source I could find that has Eder's exact date of death is the personal website of a known associate of Eder, Lowell Gallin [27]. Would this count as a reliable source for a small detail? הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 01:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For that matter, is Lotem.net a reliable source for the death of what would otherwise be a BLP? Lotem is a non-profit organization that organizes tours for people with disabilities. The article I linked to describes Emek HaShalom, a farm (ranch?) established by Eder, now managed by Lotem as part of their tours. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
As an alternative, I can use the poorly formatted site Itgamemorial.co.il, a memorial website for Itga.org.il, the Israel Tour Guides Association. Is that more or less reliable than Lotem.net? הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 21:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The artists mother's name was Laura ( not Laura Beth ). Kenneth Hockney was not a conscientious objector in the first world war as he would only have been 10 years old. Source: John Hockney the artists brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I came across a Wiki entry in English that has over 80% of the references coming from Spanish publications in Spanish. What is the rule on this? I couldn't find it on any searches. -- OnceaMetro ( talk) 16:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
"Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."
In Marco Rubio the following references have been repeatedly removed as not being "reliable sources" as they are "blogs"
and
edit summary: rm unsourced WP:OR statement + blog source
I suggest that The New York Times' "the caucus blog" is reliable per many prior discussions on newspaper "blogs" and that the sources show that the $110,000 figure for the credit card expenses is inapt where it lists the questioned expenses as only reaching $16,000 of that total -- the claim of another editor is that we should state that Rubio improperly took $110,000 of Republican Party funds and then repaid only $16,000 as the edit is worded now.
As far as I can tell this language implies he still owes $94,000 to the GOP, while the NYT blogs make clear that the amount in dispute was, indeed, much lower than $110,000, and that Rubio did not owe $110,000 to the GOP. And the NYT also makes clear that the amount Rubio paid was apparently correct. The question here is -- are the NYT blogs "reliable sources" for Wikipedia purposes? Is it OR to state that $16,000 is "much lower" than $110,000? Collect ( talk) 19:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to confirm if iReportersTv is akin to a non-RS blog - per [28] this seems to be user-generated. There also doesn't seem to be an article for iReportersTv (notability?).
See an example at Ramsey Nouah, where info based on ref from The Punch was replaced by an iReportersTv.co cite. Dl2000 ( talk) 03:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I have the following 2 sources on the internet:
I would like to know if those 2 sources meet WP:RS in this context. THANKS! 209.212.23.45 ( talk) 18:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I did NOT take part in the discussion. One editor fudged the numbers and later changed the 2 sources, thus his conflict with another editor and I want to avoid that. I am wondering if any of the 2 sources mentioned above took this 3rd study of Reuters as primary source (but here Reuters does not mention "Net Worth".)
....& sorry, if I pushed caps lock inadvertently :) 209.212.23.45 ( talk) 19:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor, Reywdo, has added several primary sources as citations at Incest in popular culture. These include citations to the book itself, as in this diff. Also added by the same editor, there are citations to The National Academy Museum for sculptures. These citations lack any mention of incest, and I believe that they, too, are primary. With no reliable secondary sources to back up these inclusions, I have removed them, but the editor is edit warring to include them. An anonymous IP has now added a secondary source, but it, too, does not mention anything about incest. I do not think these sources are good enough to include these items in the existing example farm, which I am slowly working toward referencing and pruning down. Any input on the matter would be helpful. I am becoming suspicious that Tess O'Dwyer's name comes up so often in these references, and I suspect a conflict of interest. Please note that this article is specifically about incest, and sexual abuse is not the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 16:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
To my understanding:
are user-run blogs of various Gawker Media sites. They're not used too heavily in the mainspace, but I thought this should be posted here. 23W 07:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Kind of a long story short, an IP address tried to add some information to the article Chris Alexander (editor) at this edit. The site used, La Politique Psychotronique, looks to be unusable as a site because it would be considered a blog or self-published source by Wikipedia's guidelines. The IP complained about it at Talk:Chris Alexander (editor). He's the writer of LPP (mentioning that for transparency, as this is why he mentioned it) and argued that his site should be used because he previously worked for Fangoria and would qualify as a known source. I'm just sort of leery about it being used since I don't see where he'd really qualify as an "established expert" because our bar for that is very, very high. I'm also somewhat nervous about using it given the topic (Alexander using the magazine to promote his movie under false pretenses) and because Pace has become involved with this to a small degree, as Alexander evidently posted (and then deleted) a very nasty comment about him on his Facebook site. I was able to find a Bloody Disgusting article about the review fiasco, but that's about all I could find and I can't find anything that mentions Pace's site. Sorry for the long-ish explanation, but we do need a little bit of explanation here because of everything that's going into it. We've also got to be careful since Alexander does apparently read his own page, given the talk at AfD. It's not that I think that we should post nothing but glowing stuff, but there is a somewhat higher chance of him coming in and arguing the point so I do think that we need to be very, very careful. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Some editor tell me if IBOS is a reliable source. Because I found they have all the details of Bollywood box office collections with inflation adjusted-- Enterths300000 ( talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This source [30] that supported this information: "A 2013 peer reviewed literature review concluded that neonicotinoids in the amounts that they are typically used harm bees and that safer alternatives are urgently needed.[7]" has been removed from the article Neonicotinoid. The July 19 edit summary stated "(Removing due to previous undue weight concerns. Not the scientific consensus as previously discussed on talk page.)" Is this review a primary or a secondary source? Gandydancer ( talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
A new user, Fleivium, has been " fixing" deadlinks by linking to images on the libflow.com website. It turns out that libflow.com is a website owned by "Flavio B." and started as a "personal website to organize notes, documents and papers", but was later opened up "to allow everybody freely upload what they considered interesting for other people to read". Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, the "deadlink fixes" have often substituted libflow.com images for active webpages that have simply moved (e.g., [31]). I've tried to fix a few of them, but it appears that Fleivium is on a mission and his fixes will continue unabated. Is libflow.com a reliable source? Should Fleivium be allowed to continue "fixing" deadlinks with libflow.com links? Can someone help check out all the "fixes" that have already been made? 32.218.39.106 ( talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
See this edit. I could agree with the FrontPageMag as being not WP:RS, but I got my doubts on the National Legal and Policy Center. The center is ‘right-leaning’, but that doesn’t make it unreliable. The Wikipedia-entry doesn’t give much criticism. However, as one can see on it’s site( nlpc.org), it got a peculiar grudge against Al Sharpton, which is at least a bit strange. So what do you people think of it? Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 11:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on this Request for Blacklisting at /info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#OurCampaigns.com. The site is down, but there is a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/OurCampaigns/107581642617479?sk=timeline. Please also note previous comments at /info/en/?search=Special:Search?search=OurCampaigns&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search. Thank you. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This section uses Twitter 14 times, eg [35]. It also uses a forum [36] and 3 YouTube videos, eg [37]. Then there is Vox Media#Vox.com [38] which looks like a blog and apparently "received criticism during the 2014 Israel-Gaza crisis for allegedly biased and inaccurate reporting" although the source of that may not meet RS. We also have this blog [39] and RT [40] (and Fox) and Zero Hedge [41] - maybe that's ok, but I'm not sure. This is actually a pretty important article and from what I can see needs a lot more eyes.
As does the article of its 'caliph', Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi where editors have tried to insert material from Globalresearch.ca and WND (which I thought was blacklisted?). Again this needs more eyes from both the RS and NPOV angles. Dougweller ( talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Recently I chanced upon the GA I Am... Sasha Fierce where a number of music certifications were sourced to an image, uploaded on Tinypic.com. How reliable is this website for sourcing like this and is it even allowable on featured content of wikipedia? My hunch is that it should really be removed from the article else its GA status becomes shaky. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This question is based off a discussion going on at WP:NPOVN, here. It relates to the article, America (2014 film). Your input would help resolve an ongoing content dispute. Thanks in advance for your time.
In sum, In most circumstances, is Breitbart.com a WP:RS? Casprings ( talk) 05:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
On its about page it calls itself "Iran's leading independent news agency, covering a wide variety of subjects in different, political, economic, cultural, social, legal, sports, military and other areas with the most up-to-date, independent, unbiased and reliable news and reports in Persian and English." I wouldn't put it up there with the AP or Reuters, and of course there's going to be a political/editorial slant, however I don't see any reason to declare it unreliable off the bat. - Technophant ( talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable for most purposes, especially for non-contentious Iran-related fact. For international politics treat as biased. Not reliable for science and treat with caution even for science-related news. You will get more useful comments from this board if you ask about a particular case. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Itsmejudith, generally. Because the reliability of a source is hard to estimate universally - i.e. in all instances - here is a link to the article in question, from this discussion on the ISIS/ISIL wiki page. Fars news cites Vyacheslav Matuzov on VoR, perhaps this interview? It's not clear that Matuzov said what Fars quotes him as saying. - Darouet ( talk) 19:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hans Sachs (poster collector) exists today, but I'd like to lengthen it considerably.
I have a source that might present issues. It is an unpublished note written by Sachs that is reprinted in an recent auction catalogue.
The Hans Sachs Poster Collection, Part I, New York: Guernsey's, 2012, pp. 7-26 (German with English translation)
By and large, the details of Sachs's life are in newspaper articles, probably lifted from this source without attribution. I could cite the newspaper articles, and it would take some effort to discover that not everything came from them.
Henry Townsend 22:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The largest manufacturers of flong paper making were L S Dixon Group in Hurcott Paper Mills near Kidderminster. They supplied all the British Newspapers during the two world wars. There had been a paper mill on the site since 1635. It was owned by the Earl of Dudley and paper was made there by monks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.67.192 ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
User:TrueChinaHistory. who clearly has strong feelings about the issue of Chinese Muslims, insists that it is ok to use blogs because "These web links have to be added because they represent the public's view towards some scholar's opinion. I gave a clear indication that these sources are from non-academic citizens." The article is Chang Yuchun and there is a dispute over whether Chang Yuchun was Muslim or not. I've got no opinion but have been trying to keep this and related articles NPOV and present both sides. The actual edit that I reverted and has been reinstated is: "This issue is also discussed on Chinese cyberspace. Some network users complain Muslim scholars' conclusion is unreliable<ref>{{cite web|title=常遇春的民族怎么不是汉族|url=http://tieba.baidu.com/p/697646615|website=百度贴吧}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=有些扯吧,常遇春是回族人?|url=http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-funinfo-1560970-1.shtml|website=天涯论坛}}</ref>, while others insist Chang was a Muslim." Dougweller ( talk) 13:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User:DougwellerI Apologize to you if I hurt your feeling. This is my first time changing a wiki page and I'm lack of knowledge about everything. Please forgive me and tell me how to improve. In this sentence, I just want to demonstrate there are civilians disagree with scholars' conclusion. I haven't find any academic material discussing the public's reaction, but there are many Internet materials focusing on this topic. They also argue with evidence from reliable books and history facts. So I wonder if I could conserve these content, by changing expression or other ways? Please help me.(By the way, these two links are not blogs but BBS with discussion on them.) TrueChinaHistory ( talk)
The real issue here is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. It may be true that lots of people on the internet share an opinion... but unless a reliable source has noted this fact and commented upon it... then mentioning their view at all can give their view UNDUE weight. Blueboar ( talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I see blogs used as sources elsewhere -- but to me it seems more that having the dispute or even his religion mentioned is what is out of place. Unless the dispute or religion is a major portion of materials about the man or has the significance to his history put forward to make it relevant, why have that section at all ? Markbassett ( talk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
When dealing with scientific literature, we have a strong preference for secondary literature. However, there's some gray area as to what is called a good secondary source or review here. When government scientific agencies put out review (e.g. USDA, EPA, etc.) we typically consider them reliable sources. How should advocacy groups doing the same be handled though? I've seen multiple articles using such sources that aren't obviously problematic at first glance, but I haven't been sure of if they've just slipped through the cracks, or there has been some general consensus that they hold weight of a typical reliable secondary source. One example I've been looking at is this source [42] that is currently used over at Neonicotinoid, with the content: "In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act, calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife."
I don't have any edits in mind for that particular content right now, but the source is what made me pose the question above. It seems to fail WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, especially for self-publishing, conflict of interest, lack of peer-review, editorial oversight, etc. It would seem to me that a source like this ranks very low on the reliability spectrum as a review for addressing scientific content, consensus, etc. (although fine for saying the group called for a ban as a primary source). What are other folks thoughts on how sources like these should (or shouldn't) be used in the context of scientific content? It would seem to me a source like this wouldn't be reliable for scientific content as a review, but I wanted to get a feel for now others may have handled such sources in the past. So again, not a question on the specific content in the article, but more about where the general lines of reliability are drawn for such sources. Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A week or so ago, a new user, User:Taylmw added information to several Royal Australian Navy ship articles. Some of the content was cited to reliable sources, but other bits were attributed to a "Report of Proceedings" or a "CO Report". Is someone able to tell me if such documents count as reliable, published sources for verifiability purposes (I think not, because I think these documents, as high-end internal reports by ship captains for their superiors, are not published) but I'm A Bloody Civilian, and would request more opinions.
The affected articles (and relevant edits) are HMAS Gladstone (FCPB 216) [43], HMAS Wollongong (ACPB 92) [44], and HMAS Bendigo (FCPB 211) [45]. -- saberwyn 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering if this book is reliable to use in Muhammad al-Mahdi article. I ran into this review published in the Canadian Journal of History that has some serious criticism about the book despite respecting the work overall:
It is unfortunate that such legends continue to be repeated, especially after the recent increase of scholarship on the topic. It is certainly unfortunate that such misrepresentations are allowed to mar what is otherwise a perfectly fme and in some respects quite excellent work.
.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Can the document On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons be taken as a reliable source for the statement that the document "said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation"? The claim is made here (first paragraph) and has been discussed here.
The relevant part of the document (section 11) is: "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable. Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."
To my mind, the document explicitly excludes any such generalization as is expressed in the claim. Esoglou ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Are this book (p. 223) and this document (section 17) reliable sources for the statement that the document "warned bishops to be on guard against, and not to support, Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.
The text of the document related to the claim is:
There seems to be no basis for the claim that the organizations spoken of are exclusively Catholic. The document says that some, not all, present themselves as Catholic, and only implicitly suggests, not states, that their self-presentation is false. Esoglou ( talk) 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this document (section 17) a reliable source for the statement that the document "blamed these organizations ["Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic"] for continuing to advocate for gay rights even when, it claimed, homosexuality threatened the lives of many people" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.
The advocating that, at the time of the AIDS epidemic, the document disapproved of was the advocating of "the practice of homosexuality", not the advocating for "gay rights" (whatever the document might conceivably have meant by this). It also did not say that "homosexuality", without distinction between homosexual orientation and homogenital activity, threatened the lives of many people. The relevant sentence is: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved." One may indeed ask what is "its" other than a reference to "the practice of homosexuality".
The context is: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (section 9 of the document). Esoglou ( talk) 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is John Cornwell, Breaking Faith, p. 131 a reliable source for the statement that the trustees of Notre Dame University "believed that framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality"? The claim is made here (third paragraph) and has been discussed here. In my view, the claim is an over-simplification to the point of serious distortion. Esoglou ( talk) 13:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The False Memory Syndrome Foundation [46] is being used as a reliable source on The Courage to Heal Wikipedia page, even though it is not.
On The Courage to Heal page, it is used as a valid critique:
A 2009 newsletter from the American branch of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) criticizes the 20th anniversary edition, saying "No book did more to spread false memory syndrome". The book was described as vicious, and filled with factual errors about the FMSF and the nature of memory, though the anniversary edition is described as better, without the outrageous features of earlier publications and that in the new edition, the FMSF is not mentioned in the book's index. The book is still dedicated to recovering memories, and does not warn the reader of the doubts scientists have about its premises. The book's final case study is still a depiction of satanic ritual abuse, without noting the FBI's report that concluded there was no evidence for the phenomenon.[8] The third edition of the book, published in 1994, included a chapter entitled "Honoring the Truth," in which the authors respond to the book’s critics. The FMSF criticized the chapter about their organization as filled with factual errors and written by a man who had no known credentials and no scientific publications in the relevant fields; the discussion of the FMSF was removed from the 20th anniversary edition.[8]
This is done despite the fact that on the False Memory Syndrome Foundation wiki, it states (using reliable peer reviewed sources) that:
The claims made by the FMSF for the incidence and prevalence of false memories have been criticized for lacking any evidence, and disseminating inaccurate statistics about the alleged extent of the problem.[2] Despite claiming to offer scientific evidence for the existence of FMS, the FMSF has no criteria for one of the primary features of the proposed syndrome – how to determine whether the accusation is true or false. Most of the reports by the FMSF are anecdotal, and the studies cited to support the contention that false memories can be easily created are often based on experiments that bear little resemblance to memories of actual sexual abuse. In addition, though the FMSF claims false memories are due to dubious therapeutic practices, the organization presents no data to demonstrate these practices are widespread or form an organized treatment modality.[21][22] Within the anecdotes used by the FMSF to support their contention that faulty therapy causes false memories, some include examples of people who recovered their memories outside of therapy.[2]
femmebot 22:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay ( talk • contribs)
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I followed the instructions that asked me to include specific quotes. What I don't understand is why your view trumps the 3 scholarly sources critiquing the credibility of the FMSF on their own page. If the FMSF is so reliable, prove it. Attacking other points of view for not being credible doesn't make yours more credible. What are the credentials of its researchers? The significance and merit of their work? From the scholarly, peer-reviewed critiques, their science is pretty shoddy.femmebot 23:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay ( talk • contribs)
Sigh. So where is the evidence that her presence on the FMSF makes it credible? Nobody has explained why 3 independent critiques of FMSF have uncovered significant methodological problems in their research. Also, this is about the reliability of a source, not my position on feminism or what you consider 'ironical'. Here is a journalistic piece that would give a fair-minded reader a reason to be suspicious: http://web.archive.org/web/20071216011151/http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/97/4/memory.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay ( talk • contribs) 21:31, July 26, 2014
Magsmacaulay, you don't appear to understand the rules about reliable sources. Advocacy groups are not generally considered as reliable sources of fact regarding the subject of their advocacy, but this only means you can't make an unattributed statement of fact and cite it to FMSF. It doesn't mean that the opinion of FMSF can't be given in the article and cited to their publications. FMSF is certainly a reliable source for what their opinion is, which is all that WP:V demands for something presented as their opinion. So if mention of them in the article is careful in attributing their opinion to them, there is no case to make on the basis of reliability. Your only chance is to argue that FMSF is insignificant and can be removed on the basis of WP:WEIGHT. However, if I understand the article, the book even used to have a chapter on FMSF, which makes an argument based on weight completely unsustainable. In conclusion you don't have a case for excluding FMSF altogether. You can try arguing about the relative prominence of the mention, the accuracy of the mention (i.e. whether FMSF's opinions are presented correctly), and things like that. Not on this noticeboard though. Zero talk 02:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know the situation with this site? It was owned by UGO Networks before its closure, and all its sites bought by Ziff Davis, but I can't see any mention of it on the site. The site itself has a lot of good interviews for old school games which don't seem to exist elsewhere, like this one, so if anyone knows if it is reliable, it'd be really useful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Robert Parry and his consortiumnews.com has come up before on this noticeboard, but perhaps we could consider him on a claim by claim basis. At current issue is this claim:
What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
--
Brian Dell (
talk) 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
A dicusion at the talk page for America (2014 film) is becoming heated over including the Blaze as a WP:RS for that movie. There needs to be some outside input into the issue. Please look at the context and give your opinion on rather the source should or should not be used. The discussion can be found here. Casprings ( talk) 23:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
explicitly ties the grade's rarity to the article topic. That means you find their judgement reliable. Most others don't. Most find it questionable.
Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. That means not using a questionable source for facts about the movie or facts about CinemaScore. I can see that their reputation for fact-checking is good with you personally. That's fine, live and let live. I don't see that reputation represented in the larger world. "The NY Times makes mistakes too" is never going to be seen as a valid argument on this board as a substitute for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (And as far as Mintz goes, he seems to have give three or four answers over the years about how many films received an A+. You seem to think the one the Blaze and Brietbart latched onto must be the only possible correct one, but if the original source is giving contradictory answers, I don't see how we can elevate one over the others in Wikipedia's voice. None of the estimates were given out in a RS in connection to this particular article's subject, of course.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselvesThe onus is on the editor suggesting the change to convince other editors a source is not questionable. I do not see you doing that, although I'm sure you believe in the source yourself. Horoscopes also have "extreme popularity", but they are not RS. "Established facts" should be cited to RS, not cited to non-RS. If a source has a dodgy reputation it generally shouldn't be used even to cite a claim that the sun is bigger than the earth, the truth notwithstanding. I also suggested a CNN citation for the A+ grade, but looking at the article, that information is already there and sourced. If you want to add something like "rare" or "uncommon" there are better sources for that judgement and if you want to outline how empirically rare the nomination is, you have to do better than handwaving contradictory sources about the material away. CinemaScore is a private marketing business; it is in their interest (and the specific movies involved) to inflate people's ideas of how "rare" a result is and how important an indicator it is regarding a movie's achievements. That's why we require reliable sources to help ensure NPOV and avoid repeating marketing or cheerleader-style distortions. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
What a waste of time and digits. I asked for "the exact statement{s) or other content in the article." (as per the talk page instructions), but nothing worthwhile gets posted. Instead we have silly debates about how wonderful or unreliable the NYT is compared to other sources. If I hadn't posted earlier, thereby making myself an "involved editor", I would have shut this down as a distractive (read "disruptive") thread. We already have the talk page discussion and the NPOVN discussion. This is just more nonsensical icing on the cake. (In fact, I may do so because I only asked for a clarification. I did not contribute to the garbage pile.) – S. Rich ( talk) 04:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Are Gadling.com and Transitionsabroad.com considered reliable sources? I'd say they're more WP:SPS. AdventurousMe ( talk) 04:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In the article T. B. Joshua I would like to to use the watchblog http://tbjoshuawatch.wordpress.com/ in order so stress that Joshua is a highly controversial figure. I want one paragraph to read as follows:
T. B. Joshua has many critics
[1] with the
watchblog TB Joshua Watch
[2] being one of the most vocal critical voices. In this blog it is claimed that many prophecy videos from T.B. Joshua have been edited after a certain event happened in order to create the impression that he was actually predicting the incidents or that facts surrounding the alleged prophecies have been altered afterwards.
Any opinions on that are highly appreciated. Thank you very much. Gromobir ( talk) 12:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
My personal objection to this use is I can not see how, in any form, this anonymous blog can be considered a respected journalistic source. If I were to write paragraphs quoting positive yet equally anonymous blogs (which I can do) I would expect immediate objections and removals.
Furthermore, aside from information the user Gromobir wishes to quote, this blog is the source and propagator of a number of anonymous, evidenceless and slanderous stories of various sexual and physical abuse stories. This is extremely serious, and must immediately disqualify it from consideration as a reliable and respected source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan ( talk • contribs)
This article [53] has been proposed as support for this statement [54] in the article about the Game of Thrones episode " Oathkeeper." (Game of Thrones is an HBO television adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire books by George Martin. A Storm of Swords is the third book in the series.)
"Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX)."
Although the article is a literary analysis, it is not being cited for the writer's interpretation but rather for facts about which events occurred when in the episode and novel. In summary, it tells the reader which parts of the books appeared in the episode.
All parties concur that this site should be considered a blog and/or fansite. The dispute involves whether the exception criteria have been met or not: One user states that this article is acceptable for the statement made per WP:USERG; the author is a named member of the site's staff rather than an anonymous contributor, and credentials are listed [55]. Other users state that her credentials are not sufficient per WP:BLOGS, stating that the author is not an established expert. The first user also cites WP:CONTEXTMATTERS conceding that the author would not be considered an expert for literary analysis but should be considered so for the specific text in question.
The accuracy of the facts cited is not in question. They have been corroborated in several other primary and secondary sources including but not limited the following (though other objections have been raised to each of these): The source novel A Storm of Swords by George Martin, Watch Game of Thrones Season 4 Episode 4 paNOW, Observation Deck, GEOS, FiveThirtyEight. The material is also found on the fansite Westeros.Org, among others. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 05:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I searched the archives of this noticeboard, recalling that I'd heard and asked about io9's Observation Deck forum before:
here and
here.
GEOS labels itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run." The linked content is not usable in this instance.
The paNow article was indeed fake. All I did was ask about the source. They said it was "masquerading as a genuine article" (their words, not mine), and pulled it from adspace. As it was constructed shortly before being added (for no apparent reason) by an anon geolocating out of New York, near Cornell U, it is undoubtedly fake.
I agree with your estimate about people not wanting to get involved in a wall of text. I initially responded here as you had misrepresented the sources. You had not needed to keep responding after that. Follow your own advice: be quiet and let others contribute. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 21:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea whether linuxgamenews.com is considered a reliable source or not. If it is, will this report ( [58]) contribute to establish Minetest's notability?-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 10:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Islamization_of_the_Temple_Mount#Synagogue_on_the_Temple_Mount for a discussion between a fellow editor and me about the reliability of a certain modern source, itself quoting a medieval source, and the reliability of that medieval source as well. The discussion took place over December 4-7, 2013, and then was dormant. Recently, my opponent in that discussion made an edit based on his opinion that the sources are not reliable for the statement they come to support, which I reverted, based on my opinion that the sources are reliable for that statement. Your comments on the issue will be appreciated. I suggest to comment there, to avoid repeating arguments that have already been made or that already have been countered. Debresser ( talk) 02:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Is [www.sabrang.com] Sabrang Communications a reliable source? As already discussed here, the Committee might comprise of retired judges and been cited in some books, but are those reports scrutinised? Do those reports go through fact-finding and editorial reviews as in case of books or journal or newspaper publishing? Who verifies the information displayed in this site, other than two Human Rights members? - Vatsan34 ( talk) 09:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The following RFC could use additional input and may be of interest to the members of this noticeboard Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
While the HBO series Game of Thrones is on seasonal hiatus, I wanted to get some input on the reliability of Westeros.Org. I've come across it being used to cite plot bits here and there, but Westeros is a self-proclaimed fansite. Unless we are talking about a reference to an exclusive interview with someone from the cast and/or crew from the series, its usually not usable. Would that be a correct assessment? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
In October 2011, Hari posted an article on her blog titled "Should I get the Flu Shot?" in which she claimed that seasonal influenza vaccines are both harmful and ineffective, and urged her readers to consider avoiding them. In her post, Hari claimed that common constituents in flu shots including aluminum, thimerosal, formaldehyde, egg products, and sucrose would cause adverse reactions in users. She stated that she would never ingest any of the aforementioned ingredients herself, claiming that the medical community endorses them due to "corruption" and "greed."[citation in question] Mark Crislip, an infectious disease doctor and contributor to the "Science-Based Medicine" blog, wrote a response piece entitled "Scam Stud" in which he sharply criticized Hari's claims.[34]
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.Material that involves her claims about what happens during flu vaccines is material that involves claims about events not directly related to Vani Hari herself, whether it also speaks to her beliefs or not. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The five points you refer to are for when a self-published source is used as a claim about themselves, which is not what's happening here.This contradicts your whole earlier argument. You can't say "her views" are about her, not the claims, when you want to get out of meeting the "established expert in the field" requirement for using self-published sources in WP:UGC, and then say "her views" are about the claims, not her, when you want to get out of meeting WP:SELFSOURCE. This material does not meet either policy exception for sourcing stuff to self-published primary sources. A description of her controversial scientific claims must be sourced to secondary reliable sources, not her own blog, even if we preface those claims as in "She said, this chemical and that chemical are harmful".
That in no way conflicts with what I am saying. It is not an extraordinary claim to say, "I believe I was abducted by aliens" (as many people believe this about themselves); it is an extraordinary claim to say, "I was abducted by aliens". In any case, neither of these applies anyway, because we're only implicitly using her as a source for factual statements about herself (e.g. that she said these things). What we're actually doing is using her as a primary source corroborating her statements. There is nothing in the paragraph about her views on vaccination that requires anyone to be an expert in the field, because the article is about her, not about vaccination. What field would that even be? The field of Vani Hari biography? And what extraordinary claims would they be validating, that she made some statements on her blog?
You seem to be conflating issues of original research and POV with issues of reliability, as well as ignoring the context here. Her blog post is a primary source for this material. These are three different things. Most of your arguments are about the first two, and I'm hearing nothing about the reliability of this blog post as a primary source of the material. My contention is that the source is fine as a primary source for the factual material, per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and that the discussion needs to move on to the discussion of the other two points. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not an extraordinary claim to say, "I believe I was abducted by aliens"is not something I think most editors would agree with. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
That whole block of text shouldn't be included without some indication the blog post was somehow significant and noted, from an independent RS (and not another blog). Otherwise we could list a mention of every individual blog post anyone's ever done, sourced to the blogs they appeared on (eg "On Aug 2, she made a comment on her notice board, sourced to her notice board"). If an RS has noted her opinions on vaccines, a statement about her holding those views could be included, but sourced to that independent RS. Otherwise people are using the article to document bloggy back-and-forth. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. The worst example is that Forbes non-journalist-written blog piece that titles her a "fool". There's a line between rightfully debunking non-scientifically recognized claims (good work) and commenting about the qualities of a living person (not allowed per WP:UGC}. SPS are arguably okay to address the substance of a claim, but not the person. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed an editor adding an analysis from a blog to a this article. Are such blogs counted as "reliable sources"? Mhhossein ( talk) 08:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
(Pinging some users to participate @ SNUGGUMS, WikiRedactor, Adabow, Retrohead, and JennKR:)
The source given above links to an interview by Black magazine to singer Natalia Kills. I haven't seen it being before on Wikipedia, but it seems like it is reliable: according to their about page, they're a New Zealand biannual print magazine which is "commission-based and team oriented" and does not accept submissions for the printed version. The online blog (which is more or less WP:NEWSBLOG-style) may accept them, which is not a problem for the interview as it is included in the magazine itself. Keep in mind that it would be used in a future featured article candidate. pedro | talk 16:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this source [1] RS for this edit. I have given two further examples from other sources on the talk page of the article, "While it has been documented that crimes of war were committed by all sides to the conflict, the most exhaustive United Nations (U.N.) report, as well as an assessment by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), estimates the following proportions: 90% of the crimes committed were by Serb fighters, 6% by Croat fighters, and 4% by Muslim forces." [60] "In an exhaustive report to the United Nations, a special Commission of Experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that globally 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. These conform roughly to an assessment drafted by the American CIA." [61] yet the addition was reverted with the claim that the source is not reliable and is biased. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
At the article Right Sector, we have a dispute over the reliability of sources describing the Ukrainian political group, and those that came together in November of last year to create it.
User:Dervorguilla has removed material from the article describing the far-right views or activities of Right Sector, Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly, arguing here that Haaretz, The Independent and Le Monde Diplomatique are unreliable sources.
The user also contends that the
annual 'Human Rights in Ukraine' reports, published since 2004 by the
Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU), are not reliable. I have used these reports this report (
[62],
[63]) because they document and attribute it documents and attributes attacks on immigrants and minorities in Ukraine. The Ukrainian News Agency, Interfax Ukraine,
describes the annual reports in this way:
A LexisNexis search shows that the UHHRU is regularly referenced in the press, and the removed material from these reports, and from the newspaper articles, are all consistent with other media reports and with peer-reviewed literature, also cited in the article.
Some help in evaluating the reliability of these sources generally, and in these particular instances, is appreciated. If anyone has time discussions and RfCs abound on the talk page: [64], [65], [66], [67]. - Darouet ( talk) 23:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Is John Cornwell, Breaking Faith, p. 131 a reliable source for the statement that the trustees of Notre Dame University "believed that : framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality"? The claim is made here (third paragraph) and has been discussed here. In my view, the claim is an over-simplification to the point of serious distortion. Esoglou ( talk) 13:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Can the document On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons be taken as a reliable source for the statement that the document "said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation"? The claim is made here (first paragraph) and has been discussed here.
The relevant part of the document (section 11) is: "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable. Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."
To my mind, the document explicitly excludes any such generalization as is expressed in the claim. Esoglou ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 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 170 | ← | Archive 172 | Archive 173 | Archive 174 | Archive 175 | Archive 176 | → | Archive 180 |
So every can understand the context, this section is from the National Rifle Association article... -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:17, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Are the sources given with this text reliable?
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 16:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Done Added attribution. [1] Lightbreather ( talk) 17:31, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Hi all,
There has been a disagreement over several pages relating to economics concepts, particularly those that Marx touched on. I have been removing quite a lot of content which was unsourced, or which took a passing mention in a source and spun into a bigger essay, or which misinterpreted sources (usually trying to reframe things from a marxist perspective, which fails
WP:NPOV). Some of the content is blatantly false, like
this. However,
Jurriaan (
talk ·
contribs) disagrees, reverting my edits en masse as "vandalism". I have tried to approach this on some of the articles' talkpages, but Jurriaan's line of argument is that I'm a "vandal" and "scam editor", so we're not making much progress. The sheer volume of unsourced and mis-sourced content makes it impractical to pick out short examples, but
this is representative. Would any other uninvolved editors like to contribute?
The affected pages include:
Any suggestions? bobrayner ( talk) 00:37, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
So every can understand the context, this section is from the National Rifle Association article... -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:22, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Are the sources given with this text reliable?
{{
cite news}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 16:54, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
What is the point or purpose of stating and stating and restating that actions of Senator would be graded by the NRA in the same section over and over again? -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:58, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
I want to confirm that book reviews of H-Soz-u-Kult (History Department of the Humboldt University of Berlin) are reliable.
I am working on User:WhisperToMe/The Chinese in Latin America and the Caribbean, and if this review is reliable it means the book is eligible for a Wikipedia article (there is one more independent source). WhisperToMe ( talk) 18:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is the prose at "TheSupermodelsGallery.com" considered reliable. He is there about us page: http://www.thesupermodelsgallery.com/about/#.U8Bar7FCfl4-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:47, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
So every can understand the context, this section is from the National Rifle Association article... -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:16, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Are the sources attached to this text reliable?
-- Lightbreather ( talk) 16:46, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
Up at the top of this page it says:
The last two don't apply, so I'm going to focus on the other two. The WP:V policy says there are three types of sources: publisher, creator (writer), and type of work. Mainstream newspapers are included among reliable sources. Many respected mainstream news organizations use the Sunlight Foundation as a source. Under WP:RS, it says about news organizations: "One signal that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy is the publication of corrections." The Sunlight Foundation, The Hill, and the Washington Post publish corrections. Although the sources I gave include some (very little) opinion, they mostly present factual information - numbers - researched by someone (as I shared above) who holds a PhD in poli-sci and has worked as a research fellow at several institutions. In other words, the Sunlight Foundation and Lee Drutman are absolutely WP:V, WP:RS. So what this basically boils down to is, do you think there is some error in the factual information given; or rather, do you have equally reliable sources who says there is an error with the information given? Again, absent that, there is no question of reliability. Lightbreather ( talk) 14:54, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
DoneDeleted two of the three sources [19] and added/attributed source's opinion about what the factual information cited means. [20] Lightbreather ( talk) 17:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
If the primary source material that the cited articles are based upon is questionable, then is lessens the credibility of the entire chain of research. Regardless of what consensus is regarding Sunlight, its still questionable material because its based on OpenSecrets.org data, plain and simple. -- Scalhotrod - Just your average banjo playing, drag racing, cowboy... (Talk) 17:29, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
Is Rsvlts.com a reliable source?-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 06:11, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
1) Source. [21] 2) Article. Russo-Georgian War. 3) Content.
Ossetian separatists began shelling Georgian villages on 1 August, drawing sporadic response from Georgian peacekeepers in the region
.
Is user-generated http://www.strava.com/segments/green-power-50km-6512953 reliable enough to back up a claim that Hong Kong Trail is only 43 km, contrary to what its official website says? I'm asking on behalf of a new editor who raised this question on my talk page. — Lucas Thoms 13:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I have strong concerns about using Perverted-Justice.com as a source on BLP articles or in reference to living persons. For example, on To Catch a Predator:
John Kennelly was also significant given that he was caught by Dateline and Hansen twice during the same operation: first at the undercover house, where he appeared naked to meet an underage child, and then again less than 24 hours later at a McDonald's fast food restaurant in the Rosslyn neighborhood.<ref>http://www.perverted-justice.com/?con=SpecialGuy29</ref>
From what I can tell from their about page, the website is a group of dedicating to catching people who target minors for sexual encounters online. They gather evidence of illegal behaviors and submit them to police. However, their evidence is just accusations that may lead to an arrest which may lead to a conviction. This goes against WP:BLPCRIME. There is no editorial oversight or third-party oversight. They have been accused of libel in multiple jurisdictions ( http://www.perverted-justice.com/?pg=lawyerinfo).
In my opinion, this website should never be used as a source. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 17:09, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
As I have pointed out here, an IDF image used for propaganda is placed in the article. It not only violates WP:SOURCE, but also WP:NPOV. I want to be confirmed that
-- Wickey-nl ( talk) 10:52, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I just started a RfC on the Gaza War talkpage. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 08:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
If a journalist who collaborates with the author of a work publishes an article about the author in a different media, can that newspaper article be used as a reliable source about the author without disclosing the connection between the two?
Aja Romano from the Daily Dot has been writing articles about her Anita Sarkeesian, author of the Feminist Frequency blog where Aja "has been a regular contributor". [22] [23] These articles are being used at at Wikipedia articles Tropes vs. Women in Video Games and Anita Sarkeesian, a WP:BLP. (The connection between Romano and Sarkeesian has been removed from the former as "not relevant"). Can the source be used without notice at the Reception section of those articles? Diego ( talk) 06:34, 12 July 2014 (UTC)
I'm trying to figure out whether a book is self-published or not. The company is called Betterway Home Books and this is the book in question. At the end of the cited passage, it notes: "for more information, head to SimpleMom.net [the author's blog] and search oil cleansing method" This leads me to believe it is not WP:Reliable. Thoughts? - Sweet Nightmares 20:41, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
Is a staff blog hosted by staff of the Office of Information Technologies at UMass Amherst. Context is whether this blog could be considered reliable for the purposes of referring to a software package as malware on the MacKeeper article. The subject posting is: [25].-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 06:53, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
WOT Services is a crowdsourced Internet website reputation rating tool. Can we consider it reliable. Intent is to employ it on MacKeeper under the reviews section to demonstrate that certain areas of the public have less than positive sentiments regarding the software.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 06:31, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The subject site is a website administered by Thomas Reed who writes about Mac (OSX) malware. The site is entirely of his own (Thomas Reed) production. Far as I can tell, no other Wikipedia articles cite the website. The intent is to employ it in the reviews section of MacKeeper as the minority viewpoint but I have no indication that this site is generally accepted as an authority on the subject. The subject article is: [26].-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 06:40, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
I’m currently a stay-at-home dad, but have a history of working in Mac tech support at a couple universities, running a small software development business, writing for a developer magazine (REALbasic Developer, now renamed xDev) and even a brief stint at teaching. I am mostly self-taught on the topics discussed on this site, but have spent years developing my expertise in these areas.
In an article I intend on writing, but haven't written yet ( Asher Eder, in case anyone is interested), I have very few reliable sources for the subject's death. The only marginally reliable source is an article on the website of an organization Eder was associated with ( Lotem.net - Hebrew). However, only the year of death is given. The only online source I could find that has Eder's exact date of death is the personal website of a known associate of Eder, Lowell Gallin [27]. Would this count as a reliable source for a small detail? הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 01:01, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
For that matter, is Lotem.net a reliable source for the death of what would otherwise be a BLP? Lotem is a non-profit organization that organizes tours for people with disabilities. The article I linked to describes Emek HaShalom, a farm (ranch?) established by Eder, now managed by Lotem as part of their tours. הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 21:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
As an alternative, I can use the poorly formatted site Itgamemorial.co.il, a memorial website for Itga.org.il, the Israel Tour Guides Association. Is that more or less reliable than Lotem.net? הסרפד ( call me Hasirpad) 21:49, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
The artists mother's name was Laura ( not Laura Beth ). Kenneth Hockney was not a conscientious objector in the first world war as he would only have been 10 years old. Source: John Hockney the artists brother. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])
I came across a Wiki entry in English that has over 80% of the references coming from Spanish publications in Spanish. What is the rule on this? I couldn't find it on any searches. -- OnceaMetro ( talk) 16:35, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
"Citations to non-English sources are allowed. However, because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones, whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available."
In Marco Rubio the following references have been repeatedly removed as not being "reliable sources" as they are "blogs"
and
edit summary: rm unsourced WP:OR statement + blog source
I suggest that The New York Times' "the caucus blog" is reliable per many prior discussions on newspaper "blogs" and that the sources show that the $110,000 figure for the credit card expenses is inapt where it lists the questioned expenses as only reaching $16,000 of that total -- the claim of another editor is that we should state that Rubio improperly took $110,000 of Republican Party funds and then repaid only $16,000 as the edit is worded now.
As far as I can tell this language implies he still owes $94,000 to the GOP, while the NYT blogs make clear that the amount in dispute was, indeed, much lower than $110,000, and that Rubio did not owe $110,000 to the GOP. And the NYT also makes clear that the amount Rubio paid was apparently correct. The question here is -- are the NYT blogs "reliable sources" for Wikipedia purposes? Is it OR to state that $16,000 is "much lower" than $110,000? Collect ( talk) 19:32, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Just wanted to confirm if iReportersTv is akin to a non-RS blog - per [28] this seems to be user-generated. There also doesn't seem to be an article for iReportersTv (notability?).
See an example at Ramsey Nouah, where info based on ref from The Punch was replaced by an iReportersTv.co cite. Dl2000 ( talk) 03:09, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I have the following 2 sources on the internet:
I would like to know if those 2 sources meet WP:RS in this context. THANKS! 209.212.23.45 ( talk) 18:53, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
I did NOT take part in the discussion. One editor fudged the numbers and later changed the 2 sources, thus his conflict with another editor and I want to avoid that. I am wondering if any of the 2 sources mentioned above took this 3rd study of Reuters as primary source (but here Reuters does not mention "Net Worth".)
....& sorry, if I pushed caps lock inadvertently :) 209.212.23.45 ( talk) 19:28, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
An editor, Reywdo, has added several primary sources as citations at Incest in popular culture. These include citations to the book itself, as in this diff. Also added by the same editor, there are citations to The National Academy Museum for sculptures. These citations lack any mention of incest, and I believe that they, too, are primary. With no reliable secondary sources to back up these inclusions, I have removed them, but the editor is edit warring to include them. An anonymous IP has now added a secondary source, but it, too, does not mention anything about incest. I do not think these sources are good enough to include these items in the existing example farm, which I am slowly working toward referencing and pruning down. Any input on the matter would be helpful. I am becoming suspicious that Tess O'Dwyer's name comes up so often in these references, and I suspect a conflict of interest. Please note that this article is specifically about incest, and sexual abuse is not the same thing. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 16:50, 17 July 2014 (UTC)
To my understanding:
are user-run blogs of various Gawker Media sites. They're not used too heavily in the mainspace, but I thought this should be posted here. 23W 07:15, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Kind of a long story short, an IP address tried to add some information to the article Chris Alexander (editor) at this edit. The site used, La Politique Psychotronique, looks to be unusable as a site because it would be considered a blog or self-published source by Wikipedia's guidelines. The IP complained about it at Talk:Chris Alexander (editor). He's the writer of LPP (mentioning that for transparency, as this is why he mentioned it) and argued that his site should be used because he previously worked for Fangoria and would qualify as a known source. I'm just sort of leery about it being used since I don't see where he'd really qualify as an "established expert" because our bar for that is very, very high. I'm also somewhat nervous about using it given the topic (Alexander using the magazine to promote his movie under false pretenses) and because Pace has become involved with this to a small degree, as Alexander evidently posted (and then deleted) a very nasty comment about him on his Facebook site. I was able to find a Bloody Disgusting article about the review fiasco, but that's about all I could find and I can't find anything that mentions Pace's site. Sorry for the long-ish explanation, but we do need a little bit of explanation here because of everything that's going into it. We've also got to be careful since Alexander does apparently read his own page, given the talk at AfD. It's not that I think that we should post nothing but glowing stuff, but there is a somewhat higher chance of him coming in and arguing the point so I do think that we need to be very, very careful. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 07:52, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
Some editor tell me if IBOS is a reliable source. Because I found they have all the details of Bollywood box office collections with inflation adjusted-- Enterths300000 ( talk) 12:23, 20 July 2014 (UTC)
This source [30] that supported this information: "A 2013 peer reviewed literature review concluded that neonicotinoids in the amounts that they are typically used harm bees and that safer alternatives are urgently needed.[7]" has been removed from the article Neonicotinoid. The July 19 edit summary stated "(Removing due to previous undue weight concerns. Not the scientific consensus as previously discussed on talk page.)" Is this review a primary or a secondary source? Gandydancer ( talk) 15:14, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
A new user, Fleivium, has been " fixing" deadlinks by linking to images on the libflow.com website. It turns out that libflow.com is a website owned by "Flavio B." and started as a "personal website to organize notes, documents and papers", but was later opened up "to allow everybody freely upload what they considered interesting for other people to read". Aside from the obvious conflict of interest, the "deadlink fixes" have often substituted libflow.com images for active webpages that have simply moved (e.g., [31]). I've tried to fix a few of them, but it appears that Fleivium is on a mission and his fixes will continue unabated. Is libflow.com a reliable source? Should Fleivium be allowed to continue "fixing" deadlinks with libflow.com links? Can someone help check out all the "fixes" that have already been made? 32.218.39.106 ( talk) 17:01, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
See this edit. I could agree with the FrontPageMag as being not WP:RS, but I got my doubts on the National Legal and Policy Center. The center is ‘right-leaning’, but that doesn’t make it unreliable. The Wikipedia-entry doesn’t give much criticism. However, as one can see on it’s site( nlpc.org), it got a peculiar grudge against Al Sharpton, which is at least a bit strange. So what do you people think of it? Regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 11:04, 16 July 2014 (UTC)
Please comment on this Request for Blacklisting at /info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#OurCampaigns.com. The site is down, but there is a Facebook page at https://www.facebook.com/pages/OurCampaigns/107581642617479?sk=timeline. Please also note previous comments at /info/en/?search=Special:Search?search=OurCampaigns&prefix=Wikipedia%3AReliable+sources%2FNoticeboard&fulltext=Search&fulltext=Search. Thank you. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 04:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
This section uses Twitter 14 times, eg [35]. It also uses a forum [36] and 3 YouTube videos, eg [37]. Then there is Vox Media#Vox.com [38] which looks like a blog and apparently "received criticism during the 2014 Israel-Gaza crisis for allegedly biased and inaccurate reporting" although the source of that may not meet RS. We also have this blog [39] and RT [40] (and Fox) and Zero Hedge [41] - maybe that's ok, but I'm not sure. This is actually a pretty important article and from what I can see needs a lot more eyes.
As does the article of its 'caliph', Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi where editors have tried to insert material from Globalresearch.ca and WND (which I thought was blacklisted?). Again this needs more eyes from both the RS and NPOV angles. Dougweller ( talk) 11:19, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
Recently I chanced upon the GA I Am... Sasha Fierce where a number of music certifications were sourced to an image, uploaded on Tinypic.com. How reliable is this website for sourcing like this and is it even allowable on featured content of wikipedia? My hunch is that it should really be removed from the article else its GA status becomes shaky. — Indian:BIO · [ ChitChat ] 13:02, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
This question is based off a discussion going on at WP:NPOVN, here. It relates to the article, America (2014 film). Your input would help resolve an ongoing content dispute. Thanks in advance for your time.
In sum, In most circumstances, is Breitbart.com a WP:RS? Casprings ( talk) 05:09, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
On its about page it calls itself "Iran's leading independent news agency, covering a wide variety of subjects in different, political, economic, cultural, social, legal, sports, military and other areas with the most up-to-date, independent, unbiased and reliable news and reports in Persian and English." I wouldn't put it up there with the AP or Reuters, and of course there's going to be a political/editorial slant, however I don't see any reason to declare it unreliable off the bat. - Technophant ( talk) 15:06, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Reliable for most purposes, especially for non-contentious Iran-related fact. For international politics treat as biased. Not reliable for science and treat with caution even for science-related news. You will get more useful comments from this board if you ask about a particular case. Itsmejudith ( talk) 17:34, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Agree with Itsmejudith, generally. Because the reliability of a source is hard to estimate universally - i.e. in all instances - here is a link to the article in question, from this discussion on the ISIS/ISIL wiki page. Fars news cites Vyacheslav Matuzov on VoR, perhaps this interview? It's not clear that Matuzov said what Fars quotes him as saying. - Darouet ( talk) 19:07, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
Hans Sachs (poster collector) exists today, but I'd like to lengthen it considerably.
I have a source that might present issues. It is an unpublished note written by Sachs that is reprinted in an recent auction catalogue.
The Hans Sachs Poster Collection, Part I, New York: Guernsey's, 2012, pp. 7-26 (German with English translation)
By and large, the details of Sachs's life are in newspaper articles, probably lifted from this source without attribution. I could cite the newspaper articles, and it would take some effort to discover that not everything came from them.
Henry Townsend 22:45, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
The largest manufacturers of flong paper making were L S Dixon Group in Hurcott Paper Mills near Kidderminster. They supplied all the British Newspapers during the two world wars. There had been a paper mill on the site since 1635. It was owned by the Earl of Dudley and paper was made there by monks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.67.192 ( talk • contribs) 04:48, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
User:TrueChinaHistory. who clearly has strong feelings about the issue of Chinese Muslims, insists that it is ok to use blogs because "These web links have to be added because they represent the public's view towards some scholar's opinion. I gave a clear indication that these sources are from non-academic citizens." The article is Chang Yuchun and there is a dispute over whether Chang Yuchun was Muslim or not. I've got no opinion but have been trying to keep this and related articles NPOV and present both sides. The actual edit that I reverted and has been reinstated is: "This issue is also discussed on Chinese cyberspace. Some network users complain Muslim scholars' conclusion is unreliable<ref>{{cite web|title=常遇春的民族怎么不是汉族|url=http://tieba.baidu.com/p/697646615|website=百度贴吧}}</ref><ref>{{cite web|title=有些扯吧,常遇春是回族人?|url=http://bbs.tianya.cn/post-funinfo-1560970-1.shtml|website=天涯论坛}}</ref>, while others insist Chang was a Muslim." Dougweller ( talk) 13:43, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
User:DougwellerI Apologize to you if I hurt your feeling. This is my first time changing a wiki page and I'm lack of knowledge about everything. Please forgive me and tell me how to improve. In this sentence, I just want to demonstrate there are civilians disagree with scholars' conclusion. I haven't find any academic material discussing the public's reaction, but there are many Internet materials focusing on this topic. They also argue with evidence from reliable books and history facts. So I wonder if I could conserve these content, by changing expression or other ways? Please help me.(By the way, these two links are not blogs but BBS with discussion on them.) TrueChinaHistory ( talk)
The real issue here is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. It may be true that lots of people on the internet share an opinion... but unless a reliable source has noted this fact and commented upon it... then mentioning their view at all can give their view UNDUE weight. Blueboar ( talk) 01:03, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
I see blogs used as sources elsewhere -- but to me it seems more that having the dispute or even his religion mentioned is what is out of place. Unless the dispute or religion is a major portion of materials about the man or has the significance to his history put forward to make it relevant, why have that section at all ? Markbassett ( talk) 04:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
When dealing with scientific literature, we have a strong preference for secondary literature. However, there's some gray area as to what is called a good secondary source or review here. When government scientific agencies put out review (e.g. USDA, EPA, etc.) we typically consider them reliable sources. How should advocacy groups doing the same be handled though? I've seen multiple articles using such sources that aren't obviously problematic at first glance, but I haven't been sure of if they've just slipped through the cracks, or there has been some general consensus that they hold weight of a typical reliable secondary source. One example I've been looking at is this source [42] that is currently used over at Neonicotinoid, with the content: "In March 2013, the American Bird Conservancy published a review of 200 studies on neonicotinoids including industry research obtained through the US Freedom of Information Act, calling for a ban on neonicotinoid use as seed treatments because of their toxicity to birds, aquatic invertebrates, and other wildlife."
I don't have any edits in mind for that particular content right now, but the source is what made me pose the question above. It seems to fail WP:NOTGOODSOURCE, especially for self-publishing, conflict of interest, lack of peer-review, editorial oversight, etc. It would seem to me that a source like this ranks very low on the reliability spectrum as a review for addressing scientific content, consensus, etc. (although fine for saying the group called for a ban as a primary source). What are other folks thoughts on how sources like these should (or shouldn't) be used in the context of scientific content? It would seem to me a source like this wouldn't be reliable for scientific content as a review, but I wanted to get a feel for now others may have handled such sources in the past. So again, not a question on the specific content in the article, but more about where the general lines of reliability are drawn for such sources. Thanks. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:11, 24 July 2014 (UTC)
A week or so ago, a new user, User:Taylmw added information to several Royal Australian Navy ship articles. Some of the content was cited to reliable sources, but other bits were attributed to a "Report of Proceedings" or a "CO Report". Is someone able to tell me if such documents count as reliable, published sources for verifiability purposes (I think not, because I think these documents, as high-end internal reports by ship captains for their superiors, are not published) but I'm A Bloody Civilian, and would request more opinions.
The affected articles (and relevant edits) are HMAS Gladstone (FCPB 216) [43], HMAS Wollongong (ACPB 92) [44], and HMAS Bendigo (FCPB 211) [45]. -- saberwyn 12:07, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
I am wondering if this book is reliable to use in Muhammad al-Mahdi article. I ran into this review published in the Canadian Journal of History that has some serious criticism about the book despite respecting the work overall:
It is unfortunate that such legends continue to be repeated, especially after the recent increase of scholarship on the topic. It is certainly unfortunate that such misrepresentations are allowed to mar what is otherwise a perfectly fme and in some respects quite excellent work.
.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 20:02, 25 July 2014 (UTC)
Can the document On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons be taken as a reliable source for the statement that the document "said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation"? The claim is made here (first paragraph) and has been discussed here.
The relevant part of the document (section 11) is: "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable. Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."
To my mind, the document explicitly excludes any such generalization as is expressed in the claim. Esoglou ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Are this book (p. 223) and this document (section 17) reliable sources for the statement that the document "warned bishops to be on guard against, and not to support, Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.
The text of the document related to the claim is:
There seems to be no basis for the claim that the organizations spoken of are exclusively Catholic. The document says that some, not all, present themselves as Catholic, and only implicitly suggests, not states, that their self-presentation is false. Esoglou ( talk) 14:05, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this document (section 17) a reliable source for the statement that the document "blamed these organizations ["Catholic organizations not upholding the Church's doctrine on homosexuality, groups which the letter said were not really Catholic"] for continuing to advocate for gay rights even when, it claimed, homosexuality threatened the lives of many people" (emphasis added)? The claim is made here (paragraph 2) and has been discussed here.
The advocating that, at the time of the AIDS epidemic, the document disapproved of was the advocating of "the practice of homosexuality", not the advocating for "gay rights" (whatever the document might conceivably have meant by this). It also did not say that "homosexuality", without distinction between homosexual orientation and homogenital activity, threatened the lives of many people. The relevant sentence is: "Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved." One may indeed ask what is "its" other than a reference to "the practice of homosexuality".
The context is: "There is an effort in some countries to manipulate the Church by gaining the often well-intentioned support of her pastors with a view to changing civil-statutes and laws. This is done in order to conform to these pressure groups' concept that homosexuality is at least a completely harmless, if not an entirely good, thing. Even when the practice of homosexuality may seriously threaten the lives and well-being of a large number of people, its advocates remain undeterred and refuse to consider the magnitude of the risks involved. The Church can never be so callous. It is true that her clear position cannot be revised by pressure from civil legislation or the trend of the moment. But she is really concerned about the many who are not represented by the pro-homosexual movement and about those who may have been tempted to believe its deceitful propaganda. She is also aware that the view that homosexual activity is equivalent to, or as acceptable as, the sexual expression of conjugal love has a direct impact on society's understanding of the nature and rights of the family and puts them in jeopardy" (section 9 of the document). Esoglou ( talk) 14:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Is John Cornwell, Breaking Faith, p. 131 a reliable source for the statement that the trustees of Notre Dame University "believed that framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality"? The claim is made here (third paragraph) and has been discussed here. In my view, the claim is an over-simplification to the point of serious distortion. Esoglou ( talk) 13:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
The False Memory Syndrome Foundation [46] is being used as a reliable source on The Courage to Heal Wikipedia page, even though it is not.
On The Courage to Heal page, it is used as a valid critique:
A 2009 newsletter from the American branch of the False Memory Syndrome Foundation (FMSF) criticizes the 20th anniversary edition, saying "No book did more to spread false memory syndrome". The book was described as vicious, and filled with factual errors about the FMSF and the nature of memory, though the anniversary edition is described as better, without the outrageous features of earlier publications and that in the new edition, the FMSF is not mentioned in the book's index. The book is still dedicated to recovering memories, and does not warn the reader of the doubts scientists have about its premises. The book's final case study is still a depiction of satanic ritual abuse, without noting the FBI's report that concluded there was no evidence for the phenomenon.[8] The third edition of the book, published in 1994, included a chapter entitled "Honoring the Truth," in which the authors respond to the book’s critics. The FMSF criticized the chapter about their organization as filled with factual errors and written by a man who had no known credentials and no scientific publications in the relevant fields; the discussion of the FMSF was removed from the 20th anniversary edition.[8]
This is done despite the fact that on the False Memory Syndrome Foundation wiki, it states (using reliable peer reviewed sources) that:
The claims made by the FMSF for the incidence and prevalence of false memories have been criticized for lacking any evidence, and disseminating inaccurate statistics about the alleged extent of the problem.[2] Despite claiming to offer scientific evidence for the existence of FMS, the FMSF has no criteria for one of the primary features of the proposed syndrome – how to determine whether the accusation is true or false. Most of the reports by the FMSF are anecdotal, and the studies cited to support the contention that false memories can be easily created are often based on experiments that bear little resemblance to memories of actual sexual abuse. In addition, though the FMSF claims false memories are due to dubious therapeutic practices, the organization presents no data to demonstrate these practices are widespread or form an organized treatment modality.[21][22] Within the anecdotes used by the FMSF to support their contention that faulty therapy causes false memories, some include examples of people who recovered their memories outside of therapy.[2]
femmebot 22:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay ( talk • contribs)
Yes, I understand that Wikipedia is not considered a reliable source. I followed the instructions that asked me to include specific quotes. What I don't understand is why your view trumps the 3 scholarly sources critiquing the credibility of the FMSF on their own page. If the FMSF is so reliable, prove it. Attacking other points of view for not being credible doesn't make yours more credible. What are the credentials of its researchers? The significance and merit of their work? From the scholarly, peer-reviewed critiques, their science is pretty shoddy.femmebot 23:46, 26 July 2014 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay ( talk • contribs)
Sigh. So where is the evidence that her presence on the FMSF makes it credible? Nobody has explained why 3 independent critiques of FMSF have uncovered significant methodological problems in their research. Also, this is about the reliability of a source, not my position on feminism or what you consider 'ironical'. Here is a journalistic piece that would give a fair-minded reader a reason to be suspicious: http://web.archive.org/web/20071216011151/http://backissues.cjrarchives.org/year/97/4/memory.asp — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magsmacaulay ( talk • contribs) 21:31, July 26, 2014
Magsmacaulay, you don't appear to understand the rules about reliable sources. Advocacy groups are not generally considered as reliable sources of fact regarding the subject of their advocacy, but this only means you can't make an unattributed statement of fact and cite it to FMSF. It doesn't mean that the opinion of FMSF can't be given in the article and cited to their publications. FMSF is certainly a reliable source for what their opinion is, which is all that WP:V demands for something presented as their opinion. So if mention of them in the article is careful in attributing their opinion to them, there is no case to make on the basis of reliability. Your only chance is to argue that FMSF is insignificant and can be removed on the basis of WP:WEIGHT. However, if I understand the article, the book even used to have a chapter on FMSF, which makes an argument based on weight completely unsustainable. In conclusion you don't have a case for excluding FMSF altogether. You can try arguing about the relative prominence of the mention, the accuracy of the mention (i.e. whether FMSF's opinions are presented correctly), and things like that. Not on this noticeboard though. Zero talk 02:15, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Anyone know the situation with this site? It was owned by UGO Networks before its closure, and all its sites bought by Ziff Davis, but I can't see any mention of it on the site. The site itself has a lot of good interviews for old school games which don't seem to exist elsewhere, like this one, so if anyone knows if it is reliable, it'd be really useful. Darkwarriorblake / SEXY ACTION TALK PAGE! 17:44, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
Robert Parry and his consortiumnews.com has come up before on this noticeboard, but perhaps we could consider him on a claim by claim basis. At current issue is this claim:
What I’ve been told by one source, who has provided accurate information on similar matters in the past, is that U.S. intelligence agencies do have detailed satellite images of the likely missile battery that launched the fateful missile, but the battery appears to have been under the control of Ukrainian government troops dressed in what look like Ukrainian uniforms.
--
Brian Dell (
talk) 19:31, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
A dicusion at the talk page for America (2014 film) is becoming heated over including the Blaze as a WP:RS for that movie. There needs to be some outside input into the issue. Please look at the context and give your opinion on rather the source should or should not be used. The discussion can be found here. Casprings ( talk) 23:06, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
explicitly ties the grade's rarity to the article topic. That means you find their judgement reliable. Most others don't. Most find it questionable.
Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. That means not using a questionable source for facts about the movie or facts about CinemaScore. I can see that their reputation for fact-checking is good with you personally. That's fine, live and let live. I don't see that reputation represented in the larger world. "The NY Times makes mistakes too" is never going to be seen as a valid argument on this board as a substitute for a "reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". (And as far as Mintz goes, he seems to have give three or four answers over the years about how many films received an A+. You seem to think the one the Blaze and Brietbart latched onto must be the only possible correct one, but if the original source is giving contradictory answers, I don't see how we can elevate one over the others in Wikipedia's voice. None of the estimates were given out in a RS in connection to this particular article's subject, of course.) __ E L A Q U E A T E 22:18, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselvesThe onus is on the editor suggesting the change to convince other editors a source is not questionable. I do not see you doing that, although I'm sure you believe in the source yourself. Horoscopes also have "extreme popularity", but they are not RS. "Established facts" should be cited to RS, not cited to non-RS. If a source has a dodgy reputation it generally shouldn't be used even to cite a claim that the sun is bigger than the earth, the truth notwithstanding. I also suggested a CNN citation for the A+ grade, but looking at the article, that information is already there and sourced. If you want to add something like "rare" or "uncommon" there are better sources for that judgement and if you want to outline how empirically rare the nomination is, you have to do better than handwaving contradictory sources about the material away. CinemaScore is a private marketing business; it is in their interest (and the specific movies involved) to inflate people's ideas of how "rare" a result is and how important an indicator it is regarding a movie's achievements. That's why we require reliable sources to help ensure NPOV and avoid repeating marketing or cheerleader-style distortions. __ E L A Q U E A T E 23:31, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
Questionable sources should only be used as sources of material on themselves. __ E L A Q U E A T E 02:00, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
What a waste of time and digits. I asked for "the exact statement{s) or other content in the article." (as per the talk page instructions), but nothing worthwhile gets posted. Instead we have silly debates about how wonderful or unreliable the NYT is compared to other sources. If I hadn't posted earlier, thereby making myself an "involved editor", I would have shut this down as a distractive (read "disruptive") thread. We already have the talk page discussion and the NPOVN discussion. This is just more nonsensical icing on the cake. (In fact, I may do so because I only asked for a clarification. I did not contribute to the garbage pile.) – S. Rich ( talk) 04:11, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Are Gadling.com and Transitionsabroad.com considered reliable sources? I'd say they're more WP:SPS. AdventurousMe ( talk) 04:38, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
In the article T. B. Joshua I would like to to use the watchblog http://tbjoshuawatch.wordpress.com/ in order so stress that Joshua is a highly controversial figure. I want one paragraph to read as follows:
T. B. Joshua has many critics
[1] with the
watchblog TB Joshua Watch
[2] being one of the most vocal critical voices. In this blog it is claimed that many prophecy videos from T.B. Joshua have been edited after a certain event happened in order to create the impression that he was actually predicting the incidents or that facts surrounding the alleged prophecies have been altered afterwards.
Any opinions on that are highly appreciated. Thank you very much. Gromobir ( talk) 12:47, 28 July 2014 (UTC)
My personal objection to this use is I can not see how, in any form, this anonymous blog can be considered a respected journalistic source. If I were to write paragraphs quoting positive yet equally anonymous blogs (which I can do) I would expect immediate objections and removals.
Furthermore, aside from information the user Gromobir wishes to quote, this blog is the source and propagator of a number of anonymous, evidenceless and slanderous stories of various sexual and physical abuse stories. This is extremely serious, and must immediately disqualify it from consideration as a reliable and respected source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alexandernathan ( talk • contribs)
This article [53] has been proposed as support for this statement [54] in the article about the Game of Thrones episode " Oathkeeper." (Game of Thrones is an HBO television adaptation of the Song of Ice and Fire books by George Martin. A Storm of Swords is the third book in the series.)
"Content from this episode is also found in A Storm of Swords chapters 61, 68, 71, and 72 (Sansa V, Sansa VI, Daenerys VI, Jaime IX)."
Although the article is a literary analysis, it is not being cited for the writer's interpretation but rather for facts about which events occurred when in the episode and novel. In summary, it tells the reader which parts of the books appeared in the episode.
All parties concur that this site should be considered a blog and/or fansite. The dispute involves whether the exception criteria have been met or not: One user states that this article is acceptable for the statement made per WP:USERG; the author is a named member of the site's staff rather than an anonymous contributor, and credentials are listed [55]. Other users state that her credentials are not sufficient per WP:BLOGS, stating that the author is not an established expert. The first user also cites WP:CONTEXTMATTERS conceding that the author would not be considered an expert for literary analysis but should be considered so for the specific text in question.
The accuracy of the facts cited is not in question. They have been corroborated in several other primary and secondary sources including but not limited the following (though other objections have been raised to each of these): The source novel A Storm of Swords by George Martin, Watch Game of Thrones Season 4 Episode 4 paNOW, Observation Deck, GEOS, FiveThirtyEight. The material is also found on the fansite Westeros.Org, among others. Darkfrog24 ( talk) 05:55, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
I searched the archives of this noticeboard, recalling that I'd heard and asked about io9's Observation Deck forum before:
here and
here.
GEOS labels itself as "GEOS is fan-owned, and fan-run." The linked content is not usable in this instance.
The paNow article was indeed fake. All I did was ask about the source. They said it was "masquerading as a genuine article" (their words, not mine), and pulled it from adspace. As it was constructed shortly before being added (for no apparent reason) by an anon geolocating out of New York, near Cornell U, it is undoubtedly fake.
I agree with your estimate about people not wanting to get involved in a wall of text. I initially responded here as you had misrepresented the sources. You had not needed to keep responding after that. Follow your own advice: be quiet and let others contribute. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 21:09, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
I have no idea whether linuxgamenews.com is considered a reliable source or not. If it is, will this report ( [58]) contribute to establish Minetest's notability?-- 180.172.239.231 ( talk) 10:06, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
Please see Talk:Islamization_of_the_Temple_Mount#Synagogue_on_the_Temple_Mount for a discussion between a fellow editor and me about the reliability of a certain modern source, itself quoting a medieval source, and the reliability of that medieval source as well. The discussion took place over December 4-7, 2013, and then was dormant. Recently, my opponent in that discussion made an edit based on his opinion that the sources are not reliable for the statement they come to support, which I reverted, based on my opinion that the sources are reliable for that statement. Your comments on the issue will be appreciated. I suggest to comment there, to avoid repeating arguments that have already been made or that already have been countered. Debresser ( talk) 02:12, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
Is [www.sabrang.com] Sabrang Communications a reliable source? As already discussed here, the Committee might comprise of retired judges and been cited in some books, but are those reports scrutinised? Do those reports go through fact-finding and editorial reviews as in case of books or journal or newspaper publishing? Who verifies the information displayed in this site, other than two Human Rights members? - Vatsan34 ( talk) 09:54, 27 July 2014 (UTC)
The following RFC could use additional input and may be of interest to the members of this noticeboard Talk:2014_Israel–Gaza_conflict#RFC Gaijin42 ( talk) 17:31, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
While the HBO series Game of Thrones is on seasonal hiatus, I wanted to get some input on the reliability of Westeros.Org. I've come across it being used to cite plot bits here and there, but Westeros is a self-proclaimed fansite. Unless we are talking about a reference to an exclusive interview with someone from the cast and/or crew from the series, its usually not usable. Would that be a correct assessment? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 14:50, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
In October 2011, Hari posted an article on her blog titled "Should I get the Flu Shot?" in which she claimed that seasonal influenza vaccines are both harmful and ineffective, and urged her readers to consider avoiding them. In her post, Hari claimed that common constituents in flu shots including aluminum, thimerosal, formaldehyde, egg products, and sucrose would cause adverse reactions in users. She stated that she would never ingest any of the aforementioned ingredients herself, claiming that the medical community endorses them due to "corruption" and "greed."[citation in question] Mark Crislip, an infectious disease doctor and contributor to the "Science-Based Medicine" blog, wrote a response piece entitled "Scam Stud" in which he sharply criticized Hari's claims.[34]
1. the material is neither unduly self-serving nor an exceptional claim;
2. it does not involve claims about third parties (such as people, organizations, or other entities);
3. it does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject;
4. there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticity;
involve claims about events not directly related to the subject.Material that involves her claims about what happens during flu vaccines is material that involves claims about events not directly related to Vani Hari herself, whether it also speaks to her beliefs or not. __ E L A Q U E A T E 20:07, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
The five points you refer to are for when a self-published source is used as a claim about themselves, which is not what's happening here.This contradicts your whole earlier argument. You can't say "her views" are about her, not the claims, when you want to get out of meeting the "established expert in the field" requirement for using self-published sources in WP:UGC, and then say "her views" are about the claims, not her, when you want to get out of meeting WP:SELFSOURCE. This material does not meet either policy exception for sourcing stuff to self-published primary sources. A description of her controversial scientific claims must be sourced to secondary reliable sources, not her own blog, even if we preface those claims as in "She said, this chemical and that chemical are harmful".
That in no way conflicts with what I am saying. It is not an extraordinary claim to say, "I believe I was abducted by aliens" (as many people believe this about themselves); it is an extraordinary claim to say, "I was abducted by aliens". In any case, neither of these applies anyway, because we're only implicitly using her as a source for factual statements about herself (e.g. that she said these things). What we're actually doing is using her as a primary source corroborating her statements. There is nothing in the paragraph about her views on vaccination that requires anyone to be an expert in the field, because the article is about her, not about vaccination. What field would that even be? The field of Vani Hari biography? And what extraordinary claims would they be validating, that she made some statements on her blog?
You seem to be conflating issues of original research and POV with issues of reliability, as well as ignoring the context here. Her blog post is a primary source for this material. These are three different things. Most of your arguments are about the first two, and I'm hearing nothing about the reliability of this blog post as a primary source of the material. My contention is that the source is fine as a primary source for the factual material, per WP:PRIMARYNOTBAD, and that the discussion needs to move on to the discussion of the other two points. 0x0077BE [ talk/ contrib] 14:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
It is not an extraordinary claim to say, "I believe I was abducted by aliens"is not something I think most editors would agree with. __ E L A Q U E A T E 15:27, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
That whole block of text shouldn't be included without some indication the blog post was somehow significant and noted, from an independent RS (and not another blog). Otherwise we could list a mention of every individual blog post anyone's ever done, sourced to the blogs they appeared on (eg "On Aug 2, she made a comment on her notice board, sourced to her notice board"). If an RS has noted her opinions on vaccines, a statement about her holding those views could be included, but sourced to that independent RS. Otherwise people are using the article to document bloggy back-and-forth. __ E L A Q U E A T E 13:12, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Self-published information should never be used as a source about a living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer. The worst example is that Forbes non-journalist-written blog piece that titles her a "fool". There's a line between rightfully debunking non-scientifically recognized claims (good work) and commenting about the qualities of a living person (not allowed per WP:UGC}. SPS are arguably okay to address the substance of a claim, but not the person. __ E L A Q U E A T E 16:10, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
I noticed an editor adding an analysis from a blog to a this article. Are such blogs counted as "reliable sources"? Mhhossein ( talk) 08:42, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
(Pinging some users to participate @ SNUGGUMS, WikiRedactor, Adabow, Retrohead, and JennKR:)
The source given above links to an interview by Black magazine to singer Natalia Kills. I haven't seen it being before on Wikipedia, but it seems like it is reliable: according to their about page, they're a New Zealand biannual print magazine which is "commission-based and team oriented" and does not accept submissions for the printed version. The online blog (which is more or less WP:NEWSBLOG-style) may accept them, which is not a problem for the interview as it is included in the magazine itself. Keep in mind that it would be used in a future featured article candidate. pedro | talk 16:43, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
Is this source [1] RS for this edit. I have given two further examples from other sources on the talk page of the article, "While it has been documented that crimes of war were committed by all sides to the conflict, the most exhaustive United Nations (U.N.) report, as well as an assessment by the United States' Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), estimates the following proportions: 90% of the crimes committed were by Serb fighters, 6% by Croat fighters, and 4% by Muslim forces." [60] "In an exhaustive report to the United Nations, a special Commission of Experts, chaired by Cherif Bassiouni of DePaul University in Chicago, concluded that globally 90 percent of the crimes committed in Bosnia-Herzegovina were the responsibility of Serb extremists, 6 percent by Croat extremists, and 4 percent by Muslim extremists. These conform roughly to an assessment drafted by the American CIA." [61] yet the addition was reverted with the claim that the source is not reliable and is biased. Darkness Shines ( talk) 18:55, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
At the article Right Sector, we have a dispute over the reliability of sources describing the Ukrainian political group, and those that came together in November of last year to create it.
User:Dervorguilla has removed material from the article describing the far-right views or activities of Right Sector, Patriots of Ukraine, and the Social-National Assembly, arguing here that Haaretz, The Independent and Le Monde Diplomatique are unreliable sources.
The user also contends that the
annual 'Human Rights in Ukraine' reports, published since 2004 by the
Ukrainian Helsinki Human Rights Union (UHHRU), are not reliable. I have used these reports this report (
[62],
[63]) because they document and attribute it documents and attributes attacks on immigrants and minorities in Ukraine. The Ukrainian News Agency, Interfax Ukraine,
describes the annual reports in this way:
A LexisNexis search shows that the UHHRU is regularly referenced in the press, and the removed material from these reports, and from the newspaper articles, are all consistent with other media reports and with peer-reviewed literature, also cited in the article.
Some help in evaluating the reliability of these sources generally, and in these particular instances, is appreciated. If anyone has time discussions and RfCs abound on the talk page: [64], [65], [66], [67]. - Darouet ( talk) 23:24, 2 August 2014 (UTC)
Is John Cornwell, Breaking Faith, p. 131 a reliable source for the statement that the trustees of Notre Dame University "believed that : framing non-discrimination as a civil right conflicted with the church's teachings on homosexuality"? The claim is made here (third paragraph) and has been discussed here. In my view, the claim is an over-simplification to the point of serious distortion. Esoglou ( talk) 13:56, 26 July 2014 (UTC)
Can the document On the Pastoral Care of Homosexual Persons be taken as a reliable source for the statement that the document "said that any culpability that pertains to homosexual sexual activity is not mitigated by natural orientation"? The claim is made here (first paragraph) and has been discussed here.
The relevant part of the document (section 11) is: "It has been argued that the homosexual orientation in certain cases is not the result of deliberate choice; and so the homosexual person would then have no choice but to behave in a homosexual fashion. Lacking freedom, such a person, even if engaged in homosexual activity, would not be culpable. Here, the Church's wise moral tradition is necessary since it warns against generalizations in judging individual cases. In fact, circumstances may exist, or may have existed in the past, which would reduce or remove the culpability of the individual in a given instance; or other circumstances may increase it. What is at all costs to be avoided is the unfounded and demeaning assumption that the sexual behaviour of homosexual persons is always and totally compulsive and therefore inculpable. What is essential is that the fundamental liberty which characterizes the human person and gives him his dignity be recognized as belonging to the homosexual person as well."
To my mind, the document explicitly excludes any such generalization as is expressed in the claim. Esoglou ( talk) 14:00, 26 July 2014 (UTC)