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 175 | Archive 176 | Archive 177 | Archive 178 | Archive 179 | Archive 180 | → | Archive 185 |
One cite currently reads, "The Internet Movie Database uses September 23, 1968 and December 22, 1998. Findagrave shows a tombstone in the cemetery marked "Chu-Chu" with a birth date of September 23, 1968 and a death date of December 23, 1998. No entry in the Social Security Death Index was found under the name "Michelle Thomas"." Comments would be appreciated. In other words: Are IMDb, Findagrave and "I couldn't find it" reliable sources? - SummerPhD ( talk) 01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I have updated this article to reflect the NYTimes as the primary source for date of death and age. Date of birth is noted as not verified and year of birth is shown as being either 1967 or 1968. I think this case is closed. Vertium When all is said and done 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see discussion about sources on Talk:Ello (social network).-- ukexpat ( talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:
1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: [2]. 2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name.
3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example:
text
. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". -- Mark Miller ( talk) 03:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
For context, please see the final paragraph of this previous version of Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations. I had originally cited two Tweets concerning the veracity of a claimed George W. Bush quote. The first was by Robert Draper, a NYT contributor and the author of a bestselling book on Bush, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. [3] The second was by Terry Moran, Chief Foreign Correspondent for ABC News and a reporter covering the Bush White House during the time frame in question. [4] The accounts are longstanding and I don't believe there is any doubt about their provenance, though I can't confirm that the "verified" feature has been used in their cases. Would these Twitter posts be acceptable cites concerning the opinion of these experts regarding the quote used by Tyson? Thanks in advance for taking a look. Kelly hi! 08:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The results of the survey were consistent with recent WP:MEDRSs such as [5], [6], and [7]. Prior MEDRSs on the topic have all been inconclusive. EllenCT ( talk) 07:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are summaries of additional conclusive MEDRS sources and associated news articles from the current version of the article:
Secondary news sources covering the primary survey include [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story:
(emphasis added.) EllenCT ( talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have one comment. I thought the purpose of this noticeboard was to get outside opinion. I see the same people as in the other page (talk page and medicine project) involved in the discussion. What is the point of doing this, then? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Are books published by the Center for Public Integrity considered reliable? The only reason I ask is because I once used a widely used textbook as a source under the topic I'm thinking about citing for here, and I was shouted down because an admin felt the source was strongly biased. (He/She was openly in the animal rights camp, whereas the book discredited many radical animal rights groups.) According to WP:RS, that shouldn't matter... but I was outnumbered and voted down.
I'm thinking of using the following book as a source:
The animal industry is very divided, and although the animal rights campaigns have a strong presence on Wikipedia (and would therefore support the use of this source), I can still see my potential edits being reverted and attacked, primarily by targeting the source. The book was written based on collaborative research through public records and does not appear to be sponsored by any particular animal rights group. And I know it doesn't matter, but I come from the industry and have seen the tip of the iceberg on which the book focuses.
I have not made these edits to any articles, so there are no DIFFs. I also have not picked specific content from the book to use yet, though it can be browsed and searched online at Google Books. The material could be used on several websites, particularly Species Survival Plan, Captive breeding, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a host of zoos, and articles pertaining to conservation of particular species. PassTheSake ( talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Elaqueate: I would still like to hear more opinions on this. Thanks. PassTheSake ( talk) 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am still hoping to hear some input on this matter. For now, I will start making edits to pages and refer back to this post if edit wars erupt.
PassTheSake (
talk) 20:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I had conversation with Sitush about this website and we had agreed that this website has heavy amount of fringe theories as well as pseudo history, contradicting the mainstream historical aspects.
I had removed the link of this website from some pages before, I couldn't see people opposing. Shall I continue? No doubt that just like before, I will replace the citation with other reliable citation. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for casualty numbers on the War on terror article?
The question of the RS status of the Weekly Standard was addressed in 2010. While short of unanimous, and subject to a bit of grumbling, it nevertheless concluded that the Weekly Standard is an RS, with the usual caveat that opinion statements in news magazines can only be cited as opinion. An admin recently edited through full protection to remove a statement cited to the Weekly Standard. (Two other non-RS's were also removed, whose removal is not disputed) The admin is now using another discussion as support for the notion that the Weekly Standard is not a reliable source. In this brief discussion, it looks to me like a specific statement was reviewed, and rejected for technical reasons, not simply because the source is not an RS. The last paragraph opens with "No it is not a reliable source." but that was not the rationale used for rejecting the use of the specific cite. It looks to me like a throwaway comment, that no one bothered to address.
If in fact, it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors that a news magazine, which happens to be partisan, is not an RS, this would be a major sea change in the way we accept or reject sources as Reliable. If the Weekly Standard does not qualify, there are dozens of sources, both liberal and conservative, that must be re-examined. I think this is a simple issue, that one editor made a throwaway point in the context of making a specific determination about a quote, and should not be construed as representing the Wikipedia consensus on the issue. However, as it is being used by an admin to support a contentious edit, I would like to see some clarification.
Please note that there is a side issue: the source was initially characterized as an opinion. This is disputed and under discussion, however, the implication of the editor is that it doesn't matter whether the specific piece was an opinion piece, the whole journal "does not have a serious journalistic operation or a reputation for independent journalism" so it isn't important whether it is an opinion piece. While anyone is welcome to offer, uh, opinions, on whether the specific cite is an opinion piece, my main goal is to determine whether the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that the Weekly Standard no longer qualifies as an RS.--
S Philbrick
(Talk) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Weekly Standard is a nationwide current affairs magazine similar to Time: they publish news analysis and opinion, not investigative journalism. Just because Time employs left-wing writer Michael Grunwald doesn't mean its opinions are non-notable. Similar to Time, Weekly Standard should be considered noteworthy and reliable to some extent. Shii (tock) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
[17] contains the statements:
The issue is whether the claim as written in the source may be paraphrased as "No evidence exists that Bush said that" with the reference to "that" being "then-President George W. Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars," in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)" " If the material is not a fair phrasing of the WS words, then it "fails verification." If the wording is a fair paraphrase of the WS article, then it certainly passes verification. This is a content issue, and one where the proper course would be an RfC and not a condemnation that it "fails verification" as far as I can tell. Collect ( talk) 00:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I found http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51966824_Cheaters_in_the_Steam_Community_Gaming_Social_Network which contains a large amount of research on cheats and Valve Anti-Cheat. The author is Jeremy Blackburn.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This article appears to have been published under the alternate title, " Branded with a scarlet 'C': cheaters in a gaming social network" in the 2012 International World Wide Web Conference proceedings, which should be usable as a source on wikipedia. Note that ACM conference submissions are peer reviewed and highly regarded. Do look out for any changes between the pre-print and the final version though, and make sure to use and cite the latter. Abecedare ( talk) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
At Gamergate controversy, there is an issue with a video game journalist who has become part of the issue: this is Leigh Alexander who writes for several works including Gamasutra (where she is an editor-at-large), Time, etc. She wrote a piece for Gamasutra that was very critical of the other group; that group initiated a call to action to email Intel ( a major advertiser on Gamasutra) and were able to convince the company to remove their ads from Gamasutra; it has been identified that this specific article was the one that led to this incident.
Now while she has not written anything since that we can use on Gamergate, I would be believe that anything Alexander might write in the future about the Gamergate aspect should be considered touched by possible COI issues due to her and her site's involvement in the issue, and as such should be treated as a dependent source - that is, if there are independent sources saying the same thing that she writes, it would be better to use those sources over hers, but not outright eliminating her as a source, just the normal caution with any dependent source. This would include even if she was republished in Time in the future.
Would this be a proper interpretation of sourcing policy? I've always read it that independent sources should be used over dependent sources but that's actually not strongly codified in policy through implied by it. -- MASEM ( t) 01:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the African Journal of Disability - http://www.ajod.org - a reputable peer reviewed academic journal? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate comment on whether source 1 and source 2 are reliable by our standards for a statement that the Arapawa Pig is:
If anyone would care to comment on the capitalisation of "pig" in the sources that might also be helpful. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 07:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, my leaping reliable sources style wiki-fu beats their crouching WP:IDLI style. Osu! All the sources already found for Landrace clearly indicate the Arapawa population qualifies as one. If for some reason we're going to play a game where we're going to deny application of the term to the Arapawa population even though it perfectly fit the definitions of landrace, until some source says "The Arapawa pigs are a landrace", that's actually a form of OR in and of itself, a negative-systhesis refusal to accept demonstrable, sourced facts by use of WP:WIKILAWYERING over technicalities, that will have the result of filibustering the use of technical terminology even when common sense and reliably sourced facts indicate that the term must be applicable. I'm unaware of anywhere else we'd do that. I borders on the inconceivable that, for example, some variety of horse, call it the Fnordonian, of very small stature, would not get categorized on WP as a pony, even when we know it fits the requirements of that definition, just because the couple of sources cited, all from one publisher, didn't actually happen to use it. WP's own categorization system cannot be held hostage by one single publisher, and two editors relying on one single publisher. That publisher is reliable for some thing (e.g. the genetic testing and population head counts they've done to date), but what the definitions of biolgical terms are is not among of them. In the interim, I'm okay with "breed" or "landrace" in the article being replaced with "population", which is accurate and neutral. One source using breed in an overbroad way they said is for their own internal categorization needs, isn't sufficient to apply a label in WP that will mislead readers into thinking it's a standardized breed, much less to keep reverting Category:Landraces on this article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
On The Hum entry, there's currently an issue over whether the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a reliable source or not. An editor who has had an article published in that journal believes that it is; I don't. I'd included reference to his article, but drew attention to the fact (as I see it) that the JSE is not your run-of-the-mill scientific journal (i.e. it has been accused by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry of promoting fringe theories and ignoring contrary evidence).
He's removed any reference to the suspect nature of the peer review/scientific method of the JSE, which was being provided via a CSI quote taken from the WP JSE entry (further, he's now promoting the JSE as "peer-reviewed literature"). The justification given was, "The link to CSICOP is not objective, because CSICOP has encouraged UFO research themselves for centuries. They are competitors to the SCC the organ of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a peer reviewed journal, which encourages to publish scientific literature, including unexplained phenomena, as long as they are in an objective way. The used wording is an unjustified partial defamatory statement contra the Journal of the Scientific Exploration and has to be removed."
That's twaddle, IMO (not least because CSI hasn't been around for centuries). I've pointed him to a previous WP:RSN discussion on the JSE, but he hasn't wanted to discuss. Before I enter a situation that may well trigger an edit war, I thought I'd better check for opinions.
(a) Do you believe the JSE is a reliable source in terms of being a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Obviously, it's a reliable source in terms of reporting what's been published there, but I'm talking about the weight that we should assign to research. For example, someone reading the current phrasing of "peer reviewed literature" would likely assign the same weight to information from that source as they would to one from the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
(b) Is there any problem with the reliability of the CSI regarding its opinion of the JSE?
The article is not available online. The author has generously emailed it to me. Bearing in mind IANAscientist, my initial read of it is that the conclusions it draws are far too bold given the limited (and sometimes questionable) data that it uses. For example, its conclusion begins with the statement, "Previous research establishes that hum is not an external sound and has no electromagnetic causes." This is plainly untrue; it is the opinion of the author and ignores documented cases where external sounds have been confirmed as causing the problem (as well as the opinion of genuine experts in the field, such as head of audiology at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge). Any scientific peer review should have picked up on that.
I've not included a diff; I've refrained from reverting to avoid an edit war, so what's there now is different to what was there and both are different to what will be there. The final version would likely include mention of Frosch and Deming (the two articles published in the JSE), but separate them out from those published in scientific journals and include mention of the JSE's suspect nature. Bromley86 ( talk) 10:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I am involved in a dispute related to the "Renewable resource" article. I was accused of "edit war" for removing a reference in German language from the article lead. The article has no relation with Germany or any German subject. The reference which I have removed was completely in German. Many references are available in English. As only a minority on the English Wikipedia are able to read German, I thought that it was inappropriate to keep this reference in German and in the lead of the article which counts 3 to 4 references. It may let the reader believe that this particular subject is somewhat linked with Germany, when it is not. The editor who inserted the lead claims that Germany is particularly advanced in researches about "Renewable resources" and that this reference is necessary to reflect the German advance in this field. My position, is that he should create a sub-section about the German point of view rather than inserting a German language reference in the lead.
Is it good practice to insert a reference in a foreign language within the lead of an article (in this particular example the first reference of the article), while the subject is not related to a foreign country or a foreign subject, and when many references are available in English? If there was no regulations on Wikipedia against this practice, I guess that the English version would be full of foreign references which would be very difficult to understand and assess. Thank you in advance for your assistance.-- Christophe Krief ( talk) 07:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Source: Sacco, Joe (2009). Footnotes in Gaza Metropolitan Books. Article: Rafah Massacre: References Content: Pretty much the entire article, written in neutral voice of history as "fact" (e.g. A handful of Palestinians were fired upon without warning).
the term "graphic novel" is applied broadly, and includes fiction, non-fiction, and anthologized work.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Official and other sources are quoted in full in a graphic novel published in New York late last year by Henry Holt and Company. "Footnotes in Gaza," by cartoonist-journalist Joe Sacco, is a hefty, album-sized tome whose hard-cover version is 418 pages long - 388 of which are covered with meticulous and highly detailed black-and-white illustrations depicting Sacco's journeys to Khan Yunis and Rafah (and Jerusalem) to investigate this unknown "small percentage" of atrocities, and his interpretation in graphic-novel form of the testimonies he collected from dozens of people.
So, the proposal is to remove the one work of non-fiction that set this subject on the map, from the article on that subject? Seems bizarre. Taking this point-by-point. That a work of non-fiction is narrative-driven is not a problem, as long as the facts on which the narration are based remain unchanged. That it is a comic is totally irrelevant. Words, photographs, ... can be as neutral or as distorted as a comic book. Disputed content? Then present the content, and the dispute, side by side. You don't get to remove one source because another source disputes it (or parts of it), we don't decide which of them is right, we show both (unless there is overwhelming consensus that one source is basically rubbish or fringe, which is not the case here). Dubious fact-checking? Indicating that some of your sources are sometimes confused is not "dubious factchecking", it is being open about the troubles of getting facts about long-past events which were poorly documented at the time. I don't immediately see the relevance of your "dubious sources 2" item, Palestinian survivors exaggerated at first the number of deaths in one massacre so they (Palestinians, not the same people though as these survivors) are unreliable as a source on any alleged massacre? That's dubious logic. Your "dubious sources" 1 is even worse, unless you have evidence that the sources Sacco used were actually all Hamas militants (or that all Palestinians are pro-Hamas) and not e.g. Fatah suppporters or neutral people. Some of your statements aove are bordering on racism, with your logic apparently going "he uses Palestinians as sources, Palestinians are all anti-semitic Hamas followers, exclude the book from the article".
If you wanted to discuss the quality of the article or of this source, you should have presented a neutral statement, not some heavily biased one which is much more obviously dubious in its sources and POV than the actual source you are trying to get removed. So keep the Sacco source but present the well-sourced criticisms of it (and of the article subject) as well. Fram ( talk) 10:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The way the article is currently written, it is repeating the claims made in the Sacco source as if it were uncontroversial. The source is controversial. Therefore we shouldn't do that. Since it's important, we can devote a section to the Sacco source, but that section should not be "Events", as that means we endorse it. That section should make it clear that these are the statements of the Sacco source only, and that section should not take up over half the article. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Palestinians, who have no yet won formal national independence, must produce their history and memory in a space that is more like a bomb shelter under continuous shelling than a railway station. p.3
Palstinian attempts at historical self-representation must be understood, thereore, in relation to their narrative absence in the West.p.5
Question: would you allow the use of Congo: A History as a source for an article on Congo (or for any of the topics touched upon in the book)? If so (and I hope so!), then why would one allow this book but not the comics by Sacco? Only because of the visual difference between a book and a graphic novel? One can just as eaily lie, distort, ... in a book of course. Congo is also rather narrative, based on interviews with locals, some of them probably not very reliable, focusing largely on the point of view of one group (the native Congolese, not the Belgians), and so on. The main difference is probably that it is less journalistic, but being journalistic is hardly a reason to dismiss a source. (for anyone who doesn't know "Congo", it is very highly recommended reading! It has just been shortlisted [31] for the Cundill Prize, "the richest non-fiction historical literature prize in the world". Fram ( talk) 14:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: Footnotes in Gaza, the book we are discussing here, received the Ridenhour Book Prize in 2010, an award to those "who persevere in acts of truth-telling that protect the public interest, promote social justice or illuminate a more just vision of society". So it looks as if not just the comics world appreciated the book, but that serious journalistic awards also recognised it for its "truth-telling". I wonder why this wasn't adedd to the "points in favour" above, while a comic award and the praise of a "Palestinian rights spokesman" (nice way to dismiss the praise as partisan from the start) have been included. As said before, the initial presentation was severely skewed and biased, e.g. presenting statements by Meir Pa'il as coming from "a leading military historian" but omitting the telling "I was there." (as Pa'il was with the IDF at the time of the massacre) from his statement, making him not an unbiased reviewer but someone with a clear COI, but on the other hand omitting clear points in favour (present in the article on the book right next to the comics award, which is of course more "interesting" to include here as it strengtens the image of it being "only" a comic book, not something that anyone takes serious). Fram ( talk) 07:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this webpage reliable for the date and place of birth for Veronica Taylor in her article? Nightscream ( talk) 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There's some edit-warring going on at Isha Foundation, re an uncomplimentary piece published in Vice in Jan 2013. It's a relatively non-accusatory piece alleging cult like behaviour and looking askance at their guru (Most cult exposes are alleging far worse). In the last week or two, this has been removed 5 times from the article by two editors, mostly with claims that Vice isn't WP:RS.
Interested parties are invited to comment. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two sources that have been added to the lede of the article for Zeitgeist: The Movie that I feel are unreliable.
I have little doubt that The Third Estate is generally unreliable. With News One I am more concerned about the reliability of the specific piece than the whole site.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This membership association cannot be a main source for deciding what is and what isn't a metro system. Article List of Metro systems has been usning this membership association as main source, although f.i. China has no members, but the most metro-systems according to the list. Further IF they make general statements like "all S-Bahns" are not metro, they must be incompetente. There is a huge difference between S-Bahn in Hamburg, Berlin aswell as S-train in Copenhagen, as the tracks isn't shared with other trains in these three cities. While this indeed is the case in other S-Bahn systems ( Rostock for instance). Associations like this are unreliable as sources as they might favour (in whatever sense possible) membership systems. Under no circumstances can it be regarded as a main reliable source to base an article on. Boeing720 ( talk) 00:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This is more of a philosophical question than referencing any particular pressing dispute, but still. And it's something I've run into a couple times lately. Maybe this will will give people a change of pace.
Supposing you come across a source used in an article, but it's offline, hard to get, and in an obscure language which you don't know. Say it has an ISBN and is held in some "reputable libraries" but none in your country. It looks reliable and absent any reason to be suspicious it's OK per WP:AGF. As a practical matter it'd be near impossible to get your hands on a copy or read it if you did, though. The question is can you use the source in another article?
You can't use it directly since you can't use sources you haven't vetted yourself -- can't find the rule right off, but for any second-hand source you're supposed to say something like "such-and-such journal, cited in such-in-source [which I have actually read]". The question is, can you use a Wikipedia article for the second-hand source?
You're not supposed to cite Wikipedia articles for anything (except their own contents, a very rare situation), but on the other hand, if the source is OK to use in the original article, why would it not be OK to use in other articles? It doesn't become any less reliable in these articles. What I'm talking about is something like this:
I copied the cite of the Semenov book from the article Arabat Spit to my article ( Henichesk Strait) to ref identical material (I used a permalink). If it's OK in the first article why not equally OK in the second? Or but suppose the info in the first article is wrong -- the Semenov book is misquoted, say. Errors could promulgate through the Wikipedia. But that's true of any second-hand quote of material. But Wikipedia is not reliable. But if it's not reliable then how can we state the material in the original article using the exact same source? Does WP:AGF end at the first use of a source? Why? It's a philosophical conundrum.
Another way to state this is, is the following proposition true or false: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and that includes everything in Wikipedia articles, including their cited references, therefore there is no such thing as a "reliable source" in any Wikipedia article and we are down the rabbit hole. Yes or no? Herostratus ( talk) 03:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
My approach would be: use these "wayback machine" forum pages for finding the sources you need, not as a source by itself. Other ideas? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This paragraph is proposed for the Prem Rawat article, at the foot of section 1983-Present. One editor contests the reliability of the issuu-source http://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_2nd_august_2014/9, calls it 'self-published'; there is disagreement over that. Please, while you're at it, give your opinion about the other sources, too, as they will probably also be contested, given this article's controversial history.
"Prem Rawat attended two events in London in June 2014. He presented the 'Pledge for Peace' declaration before the UK Parliament [2], whereby each signatory is invited to report their activity on UN Peace Day, annually Sep. 22th. The 'Pledge to Peace' declaration was initiated in Brussels 2011 [3]. Also, Prem Rawat gave the keynote speech at The Water and Food Award (WAF) [4]. Along with Princess Basma Bint Ali of Jordan he was patron of this award. [5]WAF recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment. [6]“ -- Rainer P. ( talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
There's an RfC that might be appropriate for editors on this noticebook to look at. here. The question is:
Should the French name Médecins Sans Frontières be used or should the English translation Doctors without Borders be used in the article?
In the article Juan Manuel de Rosas is being argued that no author identified as belonging to the Argentine revisionist movement ("revisionismo histórico") can be used as a reference, as, it is argued, "revisionismo histórico" is a WP:FRINGE theory.
The outcome, if that proposition is true, is that a large number of prominent Argentine historians can not be used a reference for anything in that article:
...etc, etc.
So far, the only author that has been "banned" is Pacho O'Donell, [34] [35] but any of the above could be targeted (they are not disclosing which historians they consider revisionists --see talk page)
I know that what I'm asking is pretty obvious, but I need some help to sort this out. I don't know what steps should I take to convince these guys, or what approach should I use. I figured that, being an argument about sources, RSN would be the place to start.
Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. -- Langus ( t) 01:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on in the TP of the Juan Manuel de Rosas article that is a perfect example of the issue here with editors Lecen and Astynax teaming to remove a perfectly valid source from the article claiming "revisionist source" [36] [37] [38]. This might not look like much of a dispute but this behaviour is spread throughout the entire article and, as Langus pointed out above, these two editors are determined to not allow any historian they consider "revisionist" into the it which is definitely troubling. The question in this case is simple: is the book Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial by Pacho O'Donnell (published by Spanish editing grpup Planeta, one of the biggest in spanish speaking countries) a WP:RS to be used in the Juan Manuel de Rosas article? Gaba (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What is the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism?
|
---|
The Nacionalismo (Nationalism) was a far-right wing political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s. It was the Argentine nationalist equivalent to Nazism (in Germany), Fascism (in Italy and in Spain) and Integralism (in Brazil and in Portugal). Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, [1] [2] [3] [4] anti-Semitic, [5] [6] [3] racist [7] and misogynistic political movement with support for racially-based pseudo-scientific theories such as eugenics. [8] The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographic wing of Argentine Nationalism. [9] [10] [11] [12] A main goal in Argentine Nationalism was to establish a national dictatorship: "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they wished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..." [13] Juan Manuel de Rosas and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina. [14] [12] This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revisionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas' image. [15] [16] [17] [11] [12] The Neo-revisionists appeared in the 1950s and still exist to the present. Some among them are leftists. "All Revisionists [Nationalists/Revisionists and Neo-revisionists] argued that they were the victims of a well-orchestrated 'conspiracy of silence' and that Argentina's 'official history' was a deliberate 'falsification' by the intellectuals of the 'liberal oligarchy'." [18] The "set of historical villains that the Neo-revisionists identified behind the falsification of history was identical to that proposed by nacionalistas [Nationalists/Revisionists], with the same degree of grotesque simplification." [18] The Revisionists had a "lack of interest in scholarly standards". [19] Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists, according to historian Michael Goebel, "academically they ended up in the same marginal position as nacionalistas [i.e.:old revisionists]." [20] The "common feature of Neo-revisionist writers was their institutional marginality in the intellectual field". In fact, "the institutional marginality of nationalist intellectuals was greater in Argentina than elsewhere in Latin America." [20] Goebel said: "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff". David Rock was just as clear: "Revisionism is not regarded as respectable by most historians, either in or outside Latin America. It has extreme right-wing and xenophobic connotations, which most outsiders reject." |
References and Bibliography:
|
---|
|
Guys, the problem here is that "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context". (see header above).
It seems that this is not the place to ask for questions about policy interpretation, which is basically what my original question is. And I presume that none of the editors at WP:RSN know where that place is... not a good sign. Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources or Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability? -- Langus ( t) 03:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism. Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.
A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] for example.
The question posed boils down to whether these works are suitable as a WP:RS for the purposes of Wikipedia. They pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general I would say they are not considered a wholly reliable source for material for Wikipedia. Below I set out why, with reference to views in academia.
Monica Rein (11 March 1998). Politics and Education in Argentina, 1946-1962. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-7656-4000-0. Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate Caudillos (Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations.
Michael Goebel (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-1-84631-238-0. Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.
Luis Alberto Romero (31 October 2013). A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition. Penn State Press. pp. 88–. ISBN 978-0-271-06410-9. Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the Caudillos such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.
Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). Argentina: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7. Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.
David Rock (1993). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History, and Its Impact. University of California Press. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-0-520-91724-8. Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".
Nicolas Shumway (26 May 1991). The Invention of Argentina. University of California Press. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-0-520-91385-1. Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.
The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Goebel notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.
As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as WP:FRINGE. W C M email 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
“ | I agree with the thrust of the finding. I understand the distinction Cambalachero was trying to draw—between a source as evidence of history, and the same source as evidence of how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time—but it doesn't seem that Cambalachero has always observed the same distinction himself. It might be useful to add a few more diffs to the finding. | ” |
The book by O'Donnell does not easily pass WP:RS. In the case of books, WP:RS requires:
“ | Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. | ” |
Emphasis added.
Looking at O'Donnell:
Pacho O ́Donnell (18 April 2013). Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina. ISBN 978-987-04-2863-3.
Pacho O'Donnell's book is published by Penguin Random House Group, which is not an academic press. The work has not been vetted by the scholarly community. He is not a professional historian but a psychoanalyst and political writer. His wikipedia biography acknowledges he is of the "neorevisionist" school which rejects the orthodox mainstream historical view. Populism does not confer reliability and revisionist historians are disregarded by academics, because as Goebel notes above, they invent stuff (ie make it up).
Why would we use a populist work, acknowledged to be politically biased and unreliable for fact checking, when there are many peer reviewed reliable sources that can be used instead?
Further, WP:RS cautions that biased sources should be used with caution, "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Clearly Revisionist historical texts are acknowledged to be politically biased sources and O'Donnell classifies himself as neo-revisionist.
Whilst O'Donnell could be used to source revisionist opinions on Rosas, it is not a reliable source for historical fact. Again I make the point a biased source like this is unsuitable for evidence of historical fact but it could be used to show how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time.
It is asserted above that the reliability of O'Donnell was not considered in the arbcom case. Rather obviously that person has not read the evidence provided by the diffs I added or my evidence in that case. In that case I pointed out that "There seems to be a confusion by all parties here, that this is a forum that considers both user behaviour and content. The only real issue of relevance on this forum from my experience is user conduct." And indeed it did focus on user conduct, one of which was to use sources like O'Donnell that the editor acknowledged was unreliable As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. Newyorkbrad's comments quoted above are very relevant since we are seeing a repeat of the lead up to that case and an inability to acknowledge the difference between a reliable peer reviewed work and politically biased tome. Cambalachero's comment's on O'Donnell are accurate.
My comments have been a generalised response, to a general question as to the reliability of Argentine Revisionist Sources. Are they in general reliable for historical facts? No, because they are known to be politically biased, they are acknowledged as lacking in academic standards, they are not in general peer reviewed in academic journals and they have a poor reputation for fact checking. Does this mean they can never be used, no, they can be used to source the revisionist viewpoint when it is appropriate to mention it but this doesn't mean we elevate it to the same level as the mainstream academic view. W C M email 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Gaba p, I know when I'm wasting my time, and this is a fine example of that. Obviously you won't change your mind nor you will present any source declaring that O'Donnel is a reliable source (isn't there a single peer review in a scientific magazine?). Rock and Goebel are mentioned simply because they are regarded as the best specialists in Argentine Nationalism in the English speaking world. Bring sources. If you don't plan to do it, don't even bother replying, because I won't be here to answer. Wee Curry Monster said all, BTW. I agree with him. -- Lecen ( talk) 22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This whole exercise is pointless and a red herring, as we shouldn't discuss the historical movement without first discussing if a historical movement can or cannot be banned from Wikipedia. Plus, Lecen has been blocked for a week and not a single uninvolved editor has chimed in. I'm requesting closure. -- Langus ( t) 22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
{{Request close}}
As background, Oracle used to have two products: OpenOffice.org, an open-source office suite, and Oracle Open Office, a commercial version of the suite.
Question: Is this blog a reliable source for the statement that OpenOffice.org, the open-source project, is "discontinued" (see OpenOffice).
Specifically, there is a statement in the blog: "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the OpenOffice.org (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th [April 2011]". Is this a reliable interpretation of an Oracle press release of 15 April 2011 that:
"Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office."
Other sources say the commercial version of the software, Oracle Open Office, was discontinued at this time but not the open-source project. In June 2011, Oracle announced they would donate the open-source project to the Apache Foundation. -- Tóraí ( talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The edit is here: [58]. Specifically it mentions Pan Am Flight 103 which doesn't say anything about this suggestion. The text, which takes up half the lead, is:
"On 6 January 2014, The Ecologist magazine reported that the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988 could be directly linked to the Rossing Uranium Mine's processed uranium ore (Yellowcake) that was illegally extracted from Namibia in the period 1976 to 1989. A TV documentary film in March 1980 described succinctly what was going on:
"World In Action investigates the secret contract and operations arranged by British-based Rio Tinto Zinc Corp to import into Britain uranium (Yellowcake) from the Rössing Uranium Mine in Namibia, whose major shareholders are the governments of Iran and South Africa. This contract having received the blessing of the British government is now compromising the UK's position in the United Nations negotiations to remove apartheid South Africa from Namibia, which it is illegally occupying."
Although it calls itself a magazine, The Ecologist is now a website and the article is here. The author is Patrick Haseldine whose article has a comment calling him a "Lockerbie-bombing conspiracy theorist" in relationship to the article being used as a source. Dougweller ( talk) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Recently I came across the article for Walter O'Brien and was concerned with the quality of the sources that was listed in the controversy section. I removed them and provided an explanation on the article talk page. However, my edits were met with some opposition. I'm still concerned that the sources used do not meet our BLP policies and that some of the sources are questionable. I'd greatly appreciate any additional feedback on the sources. Mike V • Talk 23:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything that makes Center for Investigative Reporting an unreliable or biased source? I'm concerned about this [59]. Thundermaker ( talk) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Since editors here are experienced in sourcing, if you've the time, please comment on the page move request here. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Virginitiphobia article, and other phobia articles created by PlanetStar, a long list of phobia articles created by that editor, some are sourced solely to [60] and/or [61] - are these sources that we should be using? See for instance Nostophobia. It's easy to create articles if you find a rubbish list somewhere and use that as a source. Dougweller ( talk) 15:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This is more of a general than specific problem. The Camp Trans article is almost entirely based on unreliable sources such as Internet forums, Google Groups posts, LiveJournal blog entries, transcripts of conversations on AOL Instant Messenger, and press releases and other files hosted on scribd (most if not all now deleted). That is, it's almost entirely original research based on unreliable sources. I've removed many of these and requested new sources. But more eyes are needed on this article by those familiar with our sourcing policies. It's possible that the article needs to be deleted, but I suspect adequate sources can be found to keep at least some of the material. Skyerise ( talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:Acupuncture#Academic_centers (stable version here) there's been discussion of how to source the fact that multiple medical centers use acupuncture. Some editors have argued that the websites of these centers (e.g. Osher Medical Center at Harvard) are fine; others have argued that they are not because they are "primary sources". IMO, this is a case where a primary source is fine per WP:SELFSOURCE not to mention WP:SENSE. What do you folks think? (Relevant section of article here.) -- Middle 8 ( contribs • COI) 05:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) (edited 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 05:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 08:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this article at iFanboy [66] reliable for the following 2 statements at The Punisher (1993 video game):
Thanks in advance. Freikorp ( talk) 11:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This edit http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440 has been removed on the grounds that
The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability. The first claim has now been withdrawn. I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational.
Author Elon Gilad
Article Sukkot Theredheifer ( talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The origins of Sukkot are both historical and agricultural. Based on its timing and the fact that it is frequently referred to in the Bible as "the holiday of ingathering," meaning harvest, it is believed that the holiday evolved from ancient agricultural religious practices. Over time it was formalized, centralized and given religious significance. [1]
+
Sukkot became a significant holiday during King Josiah’s reign. However, the tiny city of Jerusalem would have been unable to house the great influx of pilgrims coming to worship in the Temple. Unable to find lodging, the pilgrims would have had to erect temporary dwellings – little huts that became known as sukkot. The holiday gradually became associated with the sukkot themselves, which took on a national-historical meaning correlated with the Exodus, as is reflected in the (late) biblical passages. [2]
As was the norm with all Jewish holidays during the Temple period, the holiday centered on animal sacrifice at the Temple. 70 bulls were sacrificed during each Sukkot, as well as numerous other animals. After the temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE, the Jewish religion went through a major change, and the temple sacrifices could no longer be observed. Thus further emphasis came to be ascribed to the sukkah, the four species, and prayer. [3]
Theredheifer ( talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
References
It seems that there are sourcing issues on the article Pit Bull. I am leaning toward sources like Veterinary Associations. There is POV warring using a very old and misinterpreted CDC study and the article is not really about pit bulls so much as support for the POV that pit bulls are nature's killing machines. I understand this is different from the sourcing issue but I would appreciate some consensus building advice. I am not sure if posting references here will work and have the refs show up properly so I will come back tommorow and repair if the refs are not working rights. I think this is kind the ideal type of RS https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx Wikidgood ( talk) 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I first thought about opening a thread on RSN actually re RS(medical) because some people seem to think that the ONLYlegitimate refs for bio med articles are things like BMJ and JAMA. But I insist that it is OK to use sources like Rueters and mainstream newspapers, including third world newspapers, for things like "Hospital Researcher Announces New Vaccine". I think the area of disagreement is that some people think that we have to worry about false hopes being raised by hucksters. That is a concern but it doesnt IMHO mean that you have to wait six months for a peer reveiwed journal article when it is a fact of history that, say, a Thailand Hospital research team has a vaccine in testing phase with animal trials. So I was hoping that there would be a similar refinement on dog bit related pages where we distinguish between an article in a newspaper stating thatthere will be say a city council ordinance on pit bulls in a place like Denver, that does these things, and we allow that as RS for that kind of thing. But we do not take it as RS if a newspaper, especially a sleazy rag or something between a sleazy rag and NYT, Wash Post or AP/UPI?Reuters blasts a headline identifying a dog as a "pit bull" becauses some old boozer down the street told the press that such and such a dog is a "pit bull". For encyclopedic statements aboutwhat is and is not true about a breed identification we need a source which is (a) secondary (b) preferably peer reviewed. If it is not (b) or if it is (advoccy), then we can present it if we identify it as a statement of an advocacy group, and/or if we balance it with a contrasting view, a criticism or at least a label that it is controversial. Does this resonate? Wikidgood ( talk) 04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think advocates are essential sources for perspectives and so I think there is need of good Wiki policies and guidelines which prevent people from reverting any advocate as not RS just because they are POV. A good example is that RT Russia Today is very slanted but it is probably RS for things like "Putin has a black dog". Similarly, Interpretermag (not sure I spelled it right) is vigorously anti Putin but is probably RS for much. But some editors claim that some sources are NEVER RS for ANYTHING and I suspect that problem will look large on pit bull in the coming weeks. Wikidgood ( talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
There's an odd case at the Summerwind article (scrutinized because it's in AfD).
There is a charge that three writers, Corey Schjoth of the Huffington Post, Bill Wundram of the Quad-City Times and Chad Lewis of Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are not reliable sources because they have "written about" paranormal legends such as UFO's, Vampires, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc.. Are these writers, or any other for that matter, not reliable sources solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past? -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
In 1916 it was purchased by Robert Patterson Lamont, who employed Chicago architects Tallmadge and Watson to substantially remodel the property and convert it into a mansion. [1] [2] [3]
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The real issue is what content supported by what reference in what article with what weight is being proposed. Without these specifics its generally not fair to evaluate a source. A writer who is a generalist, that is writes about multiple topics may not be the best source for an expert opinion on any specific subject. However, unless we know more about the content and its source I don't believe we should be making any definitive comments about sources. Id' take this back to the talk page (is there one) and try top get input there.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
This edit warring is continuing with a single editor now removing all of these sources. [69] Input to this question is highly appreciated.-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
At issue is if these sources are sufficient to state that Davis graduated at the top of her class. [70]
-- NeilN talk to me 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past Wikidgood ( talk) 00:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi - wanted to get opinions on whether the following sources can be considered reliable for the article I'm working on User:Drcarver/CoSign_by_ARX:
1) Source: Legal IT Professionals
Content:
Digital signatures, which are based on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology...are the result of a cryptographic operation that creates a ‘fingerprint’ unique to both the signer and the content, so that they cannot be copied, forged or tampered with. This process provides proof of signer identity, data integrity and the non-repudiation of signed documents, all of which can be verified without the need for proprietary verification software.
2) Source: Bio-IT World
Content:
Industries of focus include life science (particularly research and clinical trials
3) Source: EngineeringNews.co.za
Content:
Cosign is used in...Africa
4) Source: DataManager.IT
Content:
In August 2014, CoSign became the first remote / server-side digital signature solution to receive Common Criteria EAL4+ certification
Drcarver ( talk) 09:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have just reverted these two edits from JLSperling1 ( talk · contribs) to the article HMAS Southern Cross, which were attributed to this document.
The document is available from "StoryNT", which appears to be a Northern Territory government project to collate and present online user-submitted stories and documents. I am concerned that this document (and documents from StoryNT in general) do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, particularly as the project is soliciting user-submitted content, and does not appear to exercise any editorial control or fact-checking of submissions. The Disclaimer/Conditions of Use document includes ominous statements like "... although the Northern Territory Library (NTL) endeavours to monitor the quality and integrity of the information on this site, it does not guarantee that the information is complete or correct." and "The information in these collections does not constitute endorsement by NTL, as the sources are outside our control." Submissions to the project are usually released online after 1 working day.
In regard to the source in question, although framed as a document about the ship in question, the content focuses more on the activities and experiences of one of the sailors. The author appears (based on surname similarity) to be a descendant of the sailor in question. The content added to the article was from after the sailor's service aboard the vessel, so is likely to be of unspecified secondhand origin.
Was I wrong in reverting this content, or are my concerns about the quality of the source valid? -- saberwyn 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The article on Eric Diesel contains many sources that don't seem to be reliable. For example speeches (or introductory biographies given at speeches):
He directs the T.H. Huxley and Aldous Huxley Family Foundation, works and lectures in the field of neuroethics, and is active in political issues involving Korea, California ecology, and care for the elderly and dependent adults. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
- ^ Biography of PAVA English Language Public Relations Manager Eric “Oops” Diesel, Kodak Theater Du Doong II festival brochure, Pacific American Volunteer Association, Los Angeles, CA, December 5, 2007
- ^ Korean Veterans Memorial Unveiling Ceremony transcript, Hae Soung Kim, War Memorial Park, Glenora CA, May 22, 2009
- ^ Introductory Biography of Speaker Eric John Diesel, '”Laura Archera Huxley in Memory” , Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., Proceedings of The Fourth International Aldous Huxley Symposium, Huntington Library, 31 July – 2 August 2008
- ^ Korean Veterans of America President’s Address, Hae Soung Kim, Korean Veterans Award Ceremony, Los Angeles CA, December 7, 2007
- ^ Consciousness, Ethics, and Empathy in Superintelligent Computers, Introductory Biography of Speaker Eric John Diesel, Olivia de Haulleville, Evolution of Consciousness Lecture Series, Joshua Tree Transmission Theater, CA, 6-2-2011
Some of the sources don't reference any publication, for example:
In 2009, he received the Meritorious Service Medal from Korean Veterans, and the Ambassador for Peace Award from the Republic of (South) Korea in 2007. [1] In 2006, he received a Certificate of Appreciation from the City of Los Angeles for “exemplary achievement in his field and notable contributions to society”. [2]
- ^ Seh-Jik Park, Certification of Meritorious Service Medal presented to Mr. Eric Diesel
- ^ City of Los Angeles, Tom LaBonge, Councilmember 4th District
Another issue is that, throughout the article, references are clustered together making it impossible to tell which source refers to which specific information. Lampuser ( talk) 04:21, 27 October 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 175 | Archive 176 | Archive 177 | Archive 178 | Archive 179 | Archive 180 | → | Archive 185 |
One cite currently reads, "The Internet Movie Database uses September 23, 1968 and December 22, 1998. Findagrave shows a tombstone in the cemetery marked "Chu-Chu" with a birth date of September 23, 1968 and a death date of December 23, 1998. No entry in the Social Security Death Index was found under the name "Michelle Thomas"." Comments would be appreciated. In other words: Are IMDb, Findagrave and "I couldn't find it" reliable sources? - SummerPhD ( talk) 01:50, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
BTW, I have updated this article to reflect the NYTimes as the primary source for date of death and age. Date of birth is noted as not verified and year of birth is shown as being either 1967 or 1968. I think this case is closed. Vertium When all is said and done 21:17, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Please see discussion about sources on Talk:Ello (social network).-- ukexpat ( talk) 18:45, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Before posting, please be sure to include any of the following information that is available:
1. Source. The book or web page being used as the source. If it's a book, please include author, title, publisher, page number, etc. If it's an online source, please link to it. For example: [2]. 2. Article. The Wikipedia article(s) in which it is being used. For example: Article name.
3. Content. The exact statement(s) or other content in the article that the source is supporting. Please supply a WP:DIFF or put the content inside block quotes. For example:
text
. Many sources are reliable for statement "X" but unreliable for statement "Y". -- Mark Miller ( talk) 03:30, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
For context, please see the final paragraph of this previous version of Neil deGrasse Tyson fabrication allegations. I had originally cited two Tweets concerning the veracity of a claimed George W. Bush quote. The first was by Robert Draper, a NYT contributor and the author of a bestselling book on Bush, Dead Certain: The Presidency of George W. Bush. [3] The second was by Terry Moran, Chief Foreign Correspondent for ABC News and a reporter covering the Bush White House during the time frame in question. [4] The accounts are longstanding and I don't believe there is any doubt about their provenance, though I can't confirm that the "verified" feature has been used in their cases. Would these Twitter posts be acceptable cites concerning the opinion of these experts regarding the quote used by Tyson? Thanks in advance for taking a look. Kelly hi! 08:42, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
The results of the survey were consistent with recent WP:MEDRSs such as [5], [6], and [7]. Prior MEDRSs on the topic have all been inconclusive. EllenCT ( talk) 07:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Here are summaries of additional conclusive MEDRS sources and associated news articles from the current version of the article:
Secondary news sources covering the primary survey include [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], and [13]. Would it be better to summarize any or all of those instead? Here are the first three paragraphs of that last Weather.com story:
(emphasis added.) EllenCT ( talk) 21:23, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I have one comment. I thought the purpose of this noticeboard was to get outside opinion. I see the same people as in the other page (talk page and medicine project) involved in the discussion. What is the point of doing this, then? Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 23:06, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
Are books published by the Center for Public Integrity considered reliable? The only reason I ask is because I once used a widely used textbook as a source under the topic I'm thinking about citing for here, and I was shouted down because an admin felt the source was strongly biased. (He/She was openly in the animal rights camp, whereas the book discredited many radical animal rights groups.) According to WP:RS, that shouldn't matter... but I was outnumbered and voted down.
I'm thinking of using the following book as a source:
The animal industry is very divided, and although the animal rights campaigns have a strong presence on Wikipedia (and would therefore support the use of this source), I can still see my potential edits being reverted and attacked, primarily by targeting the source. The book was written based on collaborative research through public records and does not appear to be sponsored by any particular animal rights group. And I know it doesn't matter, but I come from the industry and have seen the tip of the iceberg on which the book focuses.
I have not made these edits to any articles, so there are no DIFFs. I also have not picked specific content from the book to use yet, though it can be browsed and searched online at Google Books. The material could be used on several websites, particularly Species Survival Plan, Captive breeding, Association of Zoos and Aquariums, a host of zoos, and articles pertaining to conservation of particular species. PassTheSake ( talk) 18:53, 26 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Elaqueate: I would still like to hear more opinions on this. Thanks. PassTheSake ( talk) 04:07, 29 September 2014 (UTC)
I am still hoping to hear some input on this matter. For now, I will start making edits to pages and refer back to this post if edit wars erupt.
PassTheSake (
talk) 20:19, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
I had conversation with Sitush about this website and we had agreed that this website has heavy amount of fringe theories as well as pseudo history, contradicting the mainstream historical aspects.
I had removed the link of this website from some pages before, I couldn't see people opposing. Shall I continue? No doubt that just like before, I will replace the citation with other reliable citation. Bladesmulti ( talk) 14:50, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source for casualty numbers on the War on terror article?
The question of the RS status of the Weekly Standard was addressed in 2010. While short of unanimous, and subject to a bit of grumbling, it nevertheless concluded that the Weekly Standard is an RS, with the usual caveat that opinion statements in news magazines can only be cited as opinion. An admin recently edited through full protection to remove a statement cited to the Weekly Standard. (Two other non-RS's were also removed, whose removal is not disputed) The admin is now using another discussion as support for the notion that the Weekly Standard is not a reliable source. In this brief discussion, it looks to me like a specific statement was reviewed, and rejected for technical reasons, not simply because the source is not an RS. The last paragraph opens with "No it is not a reliable source." but that was not the rationale used for rejecting the use of the specific cite. It looks to me like a throwaway comment, that no one bothered to address.
If in fact, it is the consensus of Wikipedia editors that a news magazine, which happens to be partisan, is not an RS, this would be a major sea change in the way we accept or reject sources as Reliable. If the Weekly Standard does not qualify, there are dozens of sources, both liberal and conservative, that must be re-examined. I think this is a simple issue, that one editor made a throwaway point in the context of making a specific determination about a quote, and should not be construed as representing the Wikipedia consensus on the issue. However, as it is being used by an admin to support a contentious edit, I would like to see some clarification.
Please note that there is a side issue: the source was initially characterized as an opinion. This is disputed and under discussion, however, the implication of the editor is that it doesn't matter whether the specific piece was an opinion piece, the whole journal "does not have a serious journalistic operation or a reputation for independent journalism" so it isn't important whether it is an opinion piece. While anyone is welcome to offer, uh, opinions, on whether the specific cite is an opinion piece, my main goal is to determine whether the consensus of Wikipedia editors is that the Weekly Standard no longer qualifies as an RS.--
S Philbrick
(Talk) 14:33, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
Weekly Standard is a nationwide current affairs magazine similar to Time: they publish news analysis and opinion, not investigative journalism. Just because Time employs left-wing writer Michael Grunwald doesn't mean its opinions are non-notable. Similar to Time, Weekly Standard should be considered noteworthy and reliable to some extent. Shii (tock) 20:45, 27 September 2014 (UTC)
[17] contains the statements:
The issue is whether the claim as written in the source may be paraphrased as "No evidence exists that Bush said that" with the reference to "that" being "then-President George W. Bush said, "Our God is the God who named the stars," in order to "distinguish we from they (Muslims)" " If the material is not a fair phrasing of the WS words, then it "fails verification." If the wording is a fair paraphrase of the WS article, then it certainly passes verification. This is a content issue, and one where the proper course would be an RfC and not a condemnation that it "fails verification" as far as I can tell. Collect ( talk) 00:44, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
I found http://www.researchgate.net/publication/51966824_Cheaters_in_the_Steam_Community_Gaming_Social_Network which contains a large amount of research on cheats and Valve Anti-Cheat. The author is Jeremy Blackburn.-- Vaypertrail ( talk) 11:15, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This article appears to have been published under the alternate title, " Branded with a scarlet 'C': cheaters in a gaming social network" in the 2012 International World Wide Web Conference proceedings, which should be usable as a source on wikipedia. Note that ACM conference submissions are peer reviewed and highly regarded. Do look out for any changes between the pre-print and the final version though, and make sure to use and cite the latter. Abecedare ( talk) 20:59, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
At Gamergate controversy, there is an issue with a video game journalist who has become part of the issue: this is Leigh Alexander who writes for several works including Gamasutra (where she is an editor-at-large), Time, etc. She wrote a piece for Gamasutra that was very critical of the other group; that group initiated a call to action to email Intel ( a major advertiser on Gamasutra) and were able to convince the company to remove their ads from Gamasutra; it has been identified that this specific article was the one that led to this incident.
Now while she has not written anything since that we can use on Gamergate, I would be believe that anything Alexander might write in the future about the Gamergate aspect should be considered touched by possible COI issues due to her and her site's involvement in the issue, and as such should be treated as a dependent source - that is, if there are independent sources saying the same thing that she writes, it would be better to use those sources over hers, but not outright eliminating her as a source, just the normal caution with any dependent source. This would include even if she was republished in Time in the future.
Would this be a proper interpretation of sourcing policy? I've always read it that independent sources should be used over dependent sources but that's actually not strongly codified in policy through implied by it. -- MASEM ( t) 01:24, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Is the African Journal of Disability - http://www.ajod.org - a reputable peer reviewed academic journal? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 13:16, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
I'd appreciate comment on whether source 1 and source 2 are reliable by our standards for a statement that the Arapawa Pig is:
If anyone would care to comment on the capitalisation of "pig" in the sources that might also be helpful. Thanks, Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 07:54, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
The thing is, my leaping reliable sources style wiki-fu beats their crouching WP:IDLI style. Osu! All the sources already found for Landrace clearly indicate the Arapawa population qualifies as one. If for some reason we're going to play a game where we're going to deny application of the term to the Arapawa population even though it perfectly fit the definitions of landrace, until some source says "The Arapawa pigs are a landrace", that's actually a form of OR in and of itself, a negative-systhesis refusal to accept demonstrable, sourced facts by use of WP:WIKILAWYERING over technicalities, that will have the result of filibustering the use of technical terminology even when common sense and reliably sourced facts indicate that the term must be applicable. I'm unaware of anywhere else we'd do that. I borders on the inconceivable that, for example, some variety of horse, call it the Fnordonian, of very small stature, would not get categorized on WP as a pony, even when we know it fits the requirements of that definition, just because the couple of sources cited, all from one publisher, didn't actually happen to use it. WP's own categorization system cannot be held hostage by one single publisher, and two editors relying on one single publisher. That publisher is reliable for some thing (e.g. the genetic testing and population head counts they've done to date), but what the definitions of biolgical terms are is not among of them. In the interim, I'm okay with "breed" or "landrace" in the article being replaced with "population", which is accurate and neutral. One source using breed in an overbroad way they said is for their own internal categorization needs, isn't sufficient to apply a label in WP that will mislead readers into thinking it's a standardized breed, much less to keep reverting Category:Landraces on this article. — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼ 10:43, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
On The Hum entry, there's currently an issue over whether the Journal of Scientific Exploration is a reliable source or not. An editor who has had an article published in that journal believes that it is; I don't. I'd included reference to his article, but drew attention to the fact (as I see it) that the JSE is not your run-of-the-mill scientific journal (i.e. it has been accused by the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry of promoting fringe theories and ignoring contrary evidence).
He's removed any reference to the suspect nature of the peer review/scientific method of the JSE, which was being provided via a CSI quote taken from the WP JSE entry (further, he's now promoting the JSE as "peer-reviewed literature"). The justification given was, "The link to CSICOP is not objective, because CSICOP has encouraged UFO research themselves for centuries. They are competitors to the SCC the organ of the Journal of Scientific Exploration. The Journal of Scientific Exploration is a peer reviewed journal, which encourages to publish scientific literature, including unexplained phenomena, as long as they are in an objective way. The used wording is an unjustified partial defamatory statement contra the Journal of the Scientific Exploration and has to be removed."
That's twaddle, IMO (not least because CSI hasn't been around for centuries). I've pointed him to a previous WP:RSN discussion on the JSE, but he hasn't wanted to discuss. Before I enter a situation that may well trigger an edit war, I thought I'd better check for opinions.
(a) Do you believe the JSE is a reliable source in terms of being a peer-reviewed scientific journal. Obviously, it's a reliable source in terms of reporting what's been published there, but I'm talking about the weight that we should assign to research. For example, someone reading the current phrasing of "peer reviewed literature" would likely assign the same weight to information from that source as they would to one from the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
(b) Is there any problem with the reliability of the CSI regarding its opinion of the JSE?
The article is not available online. The author has generously emailed it to me. Bearing in mind IANAscientist, my initial read of it is that the conclusions it draws are far too bold given the limited (and sometimes questionable) data that it uses. For example, its conclusion begins with the statement, "Previous research establishes that hum is not an external sound and has no electromagnetic causes." This is plainly untrue; it is the opinion of the author and ignores documented cases where external sounds have been confirmed as causing the problem (as well as the opinion of genuine experts in the field, such as head of audiology at Addenbrooke's Hospital in Cambridge). Any scientific peer review should have picked up on that.
I've not included a diff; I've refrained from reverting to avoid an edit war, so what's there now is different to what was there and both are different to what will be there. The final version would likely include mention of Frosch and Deming (the two articles published in the JSE), but separate them out from those published in scientific journals and include mention of the JSE's suspect nature. Bromley86 ( talk) 10:14, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi,
I am involved in a dispute related to the "Renewable resource" article. I was accused of "edit war" for removing a reference in German language from the article lead. The article has no relation with Germany or any German subject. The reference which I have removed was completely in German. Many references are available in English. As only a minority on the English Wikipedia are able to read German, I thought that it was inappropriate to keep this reference in German and in the lead of the article which counts 3 to 4 references. It may let the reader believe that this particular subject is somewhat linked with Germany, when it is not. The editor who inserted the lead claims that Germany is particularly advanced in researches about "Renewable resources" and that this reference is necessary to reflect the German advance in this field. My position, is that he should create a sub-section about the German point of view rather than inserting a German language reference in the lead.
Is it good practice to insert a reference in a foreign language within the lead of an article (in this particular example the first reference of the article), while the subject is not related to a foreign country or a foreign subject, and when many references are available in English? If there was no regulations on Wikipedia against this practice, I guess that the English version would be full of foreign references which would be very difficult to understand and assess. Thank you in advance for your assistance.-- Christophe Krief ( talk) 07:32, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
Source: Sacco, Joe (2009). Footnotes in Gaza Metropolitan Books. Article: Rafah Massacre: References Content: Pretty much the entire article, written in neutral voice of history as "fact" (e.g. A handful of Palestinians were fired upon without warning).
the term "graphic novel" is applied broadly, and includes fiction, non-fiction, and anthologized work.__ E L A Q U E A T E 18:10, 30 September 2014 (UTC)
Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 18:18, 30 September 2014 (UTC)Official and other sources are quoted in full in a graphic novel published in New York late last year by Henry Holt and Company. "Footnotes in Gaza," by cartoonist-journalist Joe Sacco, is a hefty, album-sized tome whose hard-cover version is 418 pages long - 388 of which are covered with meticulous and highly detailed black-and-white illustrations depicting Sacco's journeys to Khan Yunis and Rafah (and Jerusalem) to investigate this unknown "small percentage" of atrocities, and his interpretation in graphic-novel form of the testimonies he collected from dozens of people.
So, the proposal is to remove the one work of non-fiction that set this subject on the map, from the article on that subject? Seems bizarre. Taking this point-by-point. That a work of non-fiction is narrative-driven is not a problem, as long as the facts on which the narration are based remain unchanged. That it is a comic is totally irrelevant. Words, photographs, ... can be as neutral or as distorted as a comic book. Disputed content? Then present the content, and the dispute, side by side. You don't get to remove one source because another source disputes it (or parts of it), we don't decide which of them is right, we show both (unless there is overwhelming consensus that one source is basically rubbish or fringe, which is not the case here). Dubious fact-checking? Indicating that some of your sources are sometimes confused is not "dubious factchecking", it is being open about the troubles of getting facts about long-past events which were poorly documented at the time. I don't immediately see the relevance of your "dubious sources 2" item, Palestinian survivors exaggerated at first the number of deaths in one massacre so they (Palestinians, not the same people though as these survivors) are unreliable as a source on any alleged massacre? That's dubious logic. Your "dubious sources" 1 is even worse, unless you have evidence that the sources Sacco used were actually all Hamas militants (or that all Palestinians are pro-Hamas) and not e.g. Fatah suppporters or neutral people. Some of your statements aove are bordering on racism, with your logic apparently going "he uses Palestinians as sources, Palestinians are all anti-semitic Hamas followers, exclude the book from the article".
If you wanted to discuss the quality of the article or of this source, you should have presented a neutral statement, not some heavily biased one which is much more obviously dubious in its sources and POV than the actual source you are trying to get removed. So keep the Sacco source but present the well-sourced criticisms of it (and of the article subject) as well. Fram ( talk) 10:53, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
The way the article is currently written, it is repeating the claims made in the Sacco source as if it were uncontroversial. The source is controversial. Therefore we shouldn't do that. Since it's important, we can devote a section to the Sacco source, but that section should not be "Events", as that means we endorse it. That section should make it clear that these are the statements of the Sacco source only, and that section should not take up over half the article. -- GRuban ( talk) 14:29, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Palestinians, who have no yet won formal national independence, must produce their history and memory in a space that is more like a bomb shelter under continuous shelling than a railway station. p.3
Palstinian attempts at historical self-representation must be understood, thereore, in relation to their narrative absence in the West.p.5
Question: would you allow the use of Congo: A History as a source for an article on Congo (or for any of the topics touched upon in the book)? If so (and I hope so!), then why would one allow this book but not the comics by Sacco? Only because of the visual difference between a book and a graphic novel? One can just as eaily lie, distort, ... in a book of course. Congo is also rather narrative, based on interviews with locals, some of them probably not very reliable, focusing largely on the point of view of one group (the native Congolese, not the Belgians), and so on. The main difference is probably that it is less journalistic, but being journalistic is hardly a reason to dismiss a source. (for anyone who doesn't know "Congo", it is very highly recommended reading! It has just been shortlisted [31] for the Cundill Prize, "the richest non-fiction historical literature prize in the world". Fram ( talk) 14:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
Note: Footnotes in Gaza, the book we are discussing here, received the Ridenhour Book Prize in 2010, an award to those "who persevere in acts of truth-telling that protect the public interest, promote social justice or illuminate a more just vision of society". So it looks as if not just the comics world appreciated the book, but that serious journalistic awards also recognised it for its "truth-telling". I wonder why this wasn't adedd to the "points in favour" above, while a comic award and the praise of a "Palestinian rights spokesman" (nice way to dismiss the praise as partisan from the start) have been included. As said before, the initial presentation was severely skewed and biased, e.g. presenting statements by Meir Pa'il as coming from "a leading military historian" but omitting the telling "I was there." (as Pa'il was with the IDF at the time of the massacre) from his statement, making him not an unbiased reviewer but someone with a clear COI, but on the other hand omitting clear points in favour (present in the article on the book right next to the comics award, which is of course more "interesting" to include here as it strengtens the image of it being "only" a comic book, not something that anyone takes serious). Fram ( talk) 07:14, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this webpage reliable for the date and place of birth for Veronica Taylor in her article? Nightscream ( talk) 23:08, 2 October 2014 (UTC)
There's some edit-warring going on at Isha Foundation, re an uncomplimentary piece published in Vice in Jan 2013. It's a relatively non-accusatory piece alleging cult like behaviour and looking askance at their guru (Most cult exposes are alleging far worse). In the last week or two, this has been removed 5 times from the article by two editors, mostly with claims that Vice isn't WP:RS.
Interested parties are invited to comment. Andy Dingley ( talk) 12:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There are two sources that have been added to the lede of the article for Zeitgeist: The Movie that I feel are unreliable.
I have little doubt that The Third Estate is generally unreliable. With News One I am more concerned about the reliability of the specific piece than the whole site.-- The Devil's Advocate tlk. cntrb. 17:24, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
This membership association cannot be a main source for deciding what is and what isn't a metro system. Article List of Metro systems has been usning this membership association as main source, although f.i. China has no members, but the most metro-systems according to the list. Further IF they make general statements like "all S-Bahns" are not metro, they must be incompetente. There is a huge difference between S-Bahn in Hamburg, Berlin aswell as S-train in Copenhagen, as the tracks isn't shared with other trains in these three cities. While this indeed is the case in other S-Bahn systems ( Rostock for instance). Associations like this are unreliable as sources as they might favour (in whatever sense possible) membership systems. Under no circumstances can it be regarded as a main reliable source to base an article on. Boeing720 ( talk) 00:53, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
This is more of a philosophical question than referencing any particular pressing dispute, but still. And it's something I've run into a couple times lately. Maybe this will will give people a change of pace.
Supposing you come across a source used in an article, but it's offline, hard to get, and in an obscure language which you don't know. Say it has an ISBN and is held in some "reputable libraries" but none in your country. It looks reliable and absent any reason to be suspicious it's OK per WP:AGF. As a practical matter it'd be near impossible to get your hands on a copy or read it if you did, though. The question is can you use the source in another article?
You can't use it directly since you can't use sources you haven't vetted yourself -- can't find the rule right off, but for any second-hand source you're supposed to say something like "such-and-such journal, cited in such-in-source [which I have actually read]". The question is, can you use a Wikipedia article for the second-hand source?
You're not supposed to cite Wikipedia articles for anything (except their own contents, a very rare situation), but on the other hand, if the source is OK to use in the original article, why would it not be OK to use in other articles? It doesn't become any less reliable in these articles. What I'm talking about is something like this:
I copied the cite of the Semenov book from the article Arabat Spit to my article ( Henichesk Strait) to ref identical material (I used a permalink). If it's OK in the first article why not equally OK in the second? Or but suppose the info in the first article is wrong -- the Semenov book is misquoted, say. Errors could promulgate through the Wikipedia. But that's true of any second-hand quote of material. But Wikipedia is not reliable. But if it's not reliable then how can we state the material in the original article using the exact same source? Does WP:AGF end at the first use of a source? Why? It's a philosophical conundrum.
Another way to state this is, is the following proposition true or false: Wikipedia articles are not reliable sources, and that includes everything in Wikipedia articles, including their cited references, therefore there is no such thing as a "reliable source" in any Wikipedia article and we are down the rabbit hole. Yes or no? Herostratus ( talk) 03:34, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
My approach would be: use these "wayback machine" forum pages for finding the sources you need, not as a source by itself. Other ideas? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:35, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
This paragraph is proposed for the Prem Rawat article, at the foot of section 1983-Present. One editor contests the reliability of the issuu-source http://issuu.com/abpl/docs/av_2nd_august_2014/9, calls it 'self-published'; there is disagreement over that. Please, while you're at it, give your opinion about the other sources, too, as they will probably also be contested, given this article's controversial history.
"Prem Rawat attended two events in London in June 2014. He presented the 'Pledge for Peace' declaration before the UK Parliament [2], whereby each signatory is invited to report their activity on UN Peace Day, annually Sep. 22th. The 'Pledge to Peace' declaration was initiated in Brussels 2011 [3]. Also, Prem Rawat gave the keynote speech at The Water and Food Award (WAF) [4]. Along with Princess Basma Bint Ali of Jordan he was patron of this award. [5]WAF recognizes innovative concepts for sustaining or improving the environment. [6]“ -- Rainer P. ( talk) 11:44, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Missing or empty |title=
(
help)
There's an RfC that might be appropriate for editors on this noticebook to look at. here. The question is:
Should the French name Médecins Sans Frontières be used or should the English translation Doctors without Borders be used in the article?
In the article Juan Manuel de Rosas is being argued that no author identified as belonging to the Argentine revisionist movement ("revisionismo histórico") can be used as a reference, as, it is argued, "revisionismo histórico" is a WP:FRINGE theory.
The outcome, if that proposition is true, is that a large number of prominent Argentine historians can not be used a reference for anything in that article:
...etc, etc.
So far, the only author that has been "banned" is Pacho O'Donell, [34] [35] but any of the above could be targeted (they are not disclosing which historians they consider revisionists --see talk page)
I know that what I'm asking is pretty obvious, but I need some help to sort this out. I don't know what steps should I take to convince these guys, or what approach should I use. I figured that, being an argument about sources, RSN would be the place to start.
Advice would be much appreciated. Thanks. -- Langus ( t) 01:36, 4 October 2014 (UTC)
There is currently a discussion going on in the TP of the Juan Manuel de Rosas article that is a perfect example of the issue here with editors Lecen and Astynax teaming to remove a perfectly valid source from the article claiming "revisionist source" [36] [37] [38]. This might not look like much of a dispute but this behaviour is spread throughout the entire article and, as Langus pointed out above, these two editors are determined to not allow any historian they consider "revisionist" into the it which is definitely troubling. The question in this case is simple: is the book Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial by Pacho O'Donnell (published by Spanish editing grpup Planeta, one of the biggest in spanish speaking countries) a WP:RS to be used in the Juan Manuel de Rosas article? Gaba (talk) 14:19, 8 October 2014 (UTC)
What is the Argentine Nationalism/Revisionism?
|
---|
The Nacionalismo (Nationalism) was a far-right wing political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s and reached its apex in the 1930s. It was the Argentine nationalist equivalent to Nazism (in Germany), Fascism (in Italy and in Spain) and Integralism (in Brazil and in Portugal). Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, [1] [2] [3] [4] anti-Semitic, [5] [6] [3] racist [7] and misogynistic political movement with support for racially-based pseudo-scientific theories such as eugenics. [8] The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographic wing of Argentine Nationalism. [9] [10] [11] [12] A main goal in Argentine Nationalism was to establish a national dictatorship: "In Rosas and his system, the Nationalists discovered the kind of state and society they wished to restore. Rosas had ruled as a military dictator..." [13] Juan Manuel de Rosas and his regime served as models of what the Argentine Nationalists wanted for Argentina. [14] [12] This is where the Revisionism came in handy: the Revisionists’ main purpose within the Nationalism was to rehabilitate Rosas' image. [15] [16] [17] [11] [12] The Neo-revisionists appeared in the 1950s and still exist to the present. Some among them are leftists. "All Revisionists [Nationalists/Revisionists and Neo-revisionists] argued that they were the victims of a well-orchestrated 'conspiracy of silence' and that Argentina's 'official history' was a deliberate 'falsification' by the intellectuals of the 'liberal oligarchy'." [18] The "set of historical villains that the Neo-revisionists identified behind the falsification of history was identical to that proposed by nacionalistas [Nationalists/Revisionists], with the same degree of grotesque simplification." [18] The Revisionists had a "lack of interest in scholarly standards". [19] Unfortunately for the Neo-revisionists, according to historian Michael Goebel, "academically they ended up in the same marginal position as nacionalistas [i.e.:old revisionists]." [20] The "common feature of Neo-revisionist writers was their institutional marginality in the intellectual field". In fact, "the institutional marginality of nationalist intellectuals was greater in Argentina than elsewhere in Latin America." [20] Goebel said: "I would say that most serious professional historians don't take most revisionists very seriously". And added: "Those revisionists who recently have become popular again, such as José María Rosa, Hernández Arregui or Jauretche and above all Ortega Pena and Duhalde, are historiographically speaking the least serious -- they plainly invent stuff". David Rock was just as clear: "Revisionism is not regarded as respectable by most historians, either in or outside Latin America. It has extreme right-wing and xenophobic connotations, which most outsiders reject." |
References and Bibliography:
|
---|
|
Guys, the problem here is that "This page is for posting questions regarding whether particular sources are reliable in context". (see header above).
It seems that this is not the place to ask for questions about policy interpretation, which is basically what my original question is. And I presume that none of the editors at WP:RSN know where that place is... not a good sign. Perhaps Wikipedia_talk:Identifying_reliable_sources or Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability? -- Langus ( t) 03:44, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism. Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.
A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See [47], [48], [49], [50], [51], [52] for example.
The question posed boils down to whether these works are suitable as a WP:RS for the purposes of Wikipedia. They pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general I would say they are not considered a wholly reliable source for material for Wikipedia. Below I set out why, with reference to views in academia.
Monica Rein (11 March 1998). Politics and Education in Argentina, 1946-1962. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-7656-4000-0. Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate Caudillos (Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations.
Michael Goebel (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-1-84631-238-0. Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.
Luis Alberto Romero (31 October 2013). A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition. Penn State Press. pp. 88–. ISBN 978-0-271-06410-9. Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the Caudillos such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.
Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). Argentina: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7. Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.
David Rock (1993). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History, and Its Impact. University of California Press. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-0-520-91724-8. Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".
Nicolas Shumway (26 May 1991). The Invention of Argentina. University of California Press. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-0-520-91385-1. Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.
The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Goebel notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.
As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as WP:FRINGE. W C M email 10:10, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
“ | I agree with the thrust of the finding. I understand the distinction Cambalachero was trying to draw—between a source as evidence of history, and the same source as evidence of how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time—but it doesn't seem that Cambalachero has always observed the same distinction himself. It might be useful to add a few more diffs to the finding. | ” |
The book by O'Donnell does not easily pass WP:RS. In the case of books, WP:RS requires:
“ | Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. | ” |
Emphasis added.
Looking at O'Donnell:
Pacho O ́Donnell (18 April 2013). Juan Manuel de Rosas. El maldito de la historia oficial. Penguin Random House Grupo Editorial Argentina. ISBN 978-987-04-2863-3.
Pacho O'Donnell's book is published by Penguin Random House Group, which is not an academic press. The work has not been vetted by the scholarly community. He is not a professional historian but a psychoanalyst and political writer. His wikipedia biography acknowledges he is of the "neorevisionist" school which rejects the orthodox mainstream historical view. Populism does not confer reliability and revisionist historians are disregarded by academics, because as Goebel notes above, they invent stuff (ie make it up).
Why would we use a populist work, acknowledged to be politically biased and unreliable for fact checking, when there are many peer reviewed reliable sources that can be used instead?
Further, WP:RS cautions that biased sources should be used with caution, "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs." Clearly Revisionist historical texts are acknowledged to be politically biased sources and O'Donnell classifies himself as neo-revisionist.
Whilst O'Donnell could be used to source revisionist opinions on Rosas, it is not a reliable source for historical fact. Again I make the point a biased source like this is unsuitable for evidence of historical fact but it could be used to show how history was viewed by a particular group at a particular time.
It is asserted above that the reliability of O'Donnell was not considered in the arbcom case. Rather obviously that person has not read the evidence provided by the diffs I added or my evidence in that case. In that case I pointed out that "There seems to be a confusion by all parties here, that this is a forum that considers both user behaviour and content. The only real issue of relevance on this forum from my experience is user conduct." And indeed it did focus on user conduct, one of which was to use sources like O'Donnell that the editor acknowledged was unreliable As for O'Donnell, let me clarify: I trusted him 4 years ago, I do not trust him anymore, as I have better knowledge now of the way a historian must work. Newyorkbrad's comments quoted above are very relevant since we are seeing a repeat of the lead up to that case and an inability to acknowledge the difference between a reliable peer reviewed work and politically biased tome. Cambalachero's comment's on O'Donnell are accurate.
My comments have been a generalised response, to a general question as to the reliability of Argentine Revisionist Sources. Are they in general reliable for historical facts? No, because they are known to be politically biased, they are acknowledged as lacking in academic standards, they are not in general peer reviewed in academic journals and they have a poor reputation for fact checking. Does this mean they can never be used, no, they can be used to source the revisionist viewpoint when it is appropriate to mention it but this doesn't mean we elevate it to the same level as the mainstream academic view. W C M email 17:13, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
Gaba p, I know when I'm wasting my time, and this is a fine example of that. Obviously you won't change your mind nor you will present any source declaring that O'Donnel is a reliable source (isn't there a single peer review in a scientific magazine?). Rock and Goebel are mentioned simply because they are regarded as the best specialists in Argentine Nationalism in the English speaking world. Bring sources. If you don't plan to do it, don't even bother replying, because I won't be here to answer. Wee Curry Monster said all, BTW. I agree with him. -- Lecen ( talk) 22:15, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
This whole exercise is pointless and a red herring, as we shouldn't discuss the historical movement without first discussing if a historical movement can or cannot be banned from Wikipedia. Plus, Lecen has been blocked for a week and not a single uninvolved editor has chimed in. I'm requesting closure. -- Langus ( t) 22:09, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
{{Request close}}
As background, Oracle used to have two products: OpenOffice.org, an open-source office suite, and Oracle Open Office, a commercial version of the suite.
Question: Is this blog a reliable source for the statement that OpenOffice.org, the open-source project, is "discontinued" (see OpenOffice).
Specifically, there is a statement in the blog: "Oracle announced its intentions to discontinue the OpenOffice.org (OOo) suite of software on Friday 15th [April 2011]". Is this a reliable interpretation of an Oracle press release of 15 April 2011 that:
"Oracle Corporation (NASDAQ: ORCL) today is announcing its intention to move OpenOffice.org to a purely community-based open source project and to no longer offer a commercial version of Open Office."
Other sources say the commercial version of the software, Oracle Open Office, was discontinued at this time but not the open-source project. In June 2011, Oracle announced they would donate the open-source project to the Apache Foundation. -- Tóraí ( talk) 22:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
The edit is here: [58]. Specifically it mentions Pan Am Flight 103 which doesn't say anything about this suggestion. The text, which takes up half the lead, is:
"On 6 January 2014, The Ecologist magazine reported that the sabotage of Pan Am Flight 103 in December 1988 could be directly linked to the Rossing Uranium Mine's processed uranium ore (Yellowcake) that was illegally extracted from Namibia in the period 1976 to 1989. A TV documentary film in March 1980 described succinctly what was going on:
"World In Action investigates the secret contract and operations arranged by British-based Rio Tinto Zinc Corp to import into Britain uranium (Yellowcake) from the Rössing Uranium Mine in Namibia, whose major shareholders are the governments of Iran and South Africa. This contract having received the blessing of the British government is now compromising the UK's position in the United Nations negotiations to remove apartheid South Africa from Namibia, which it is illegally occupying."
Although it calls itself a magazine, The Ecologist is now a website and the article is here. The author is Patrick Haseldine whose article has a comment calling him a "Lockerbie-bombing conspiracy theorist" in relationship to the article being used as a source. Dougweller ( talk) 16:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Recently I came across the article for Walter O'Brien and was concerned with the quality of the sources that was listed in the controversy section. I removed them and provided an explanation on the article talk page. However, my edits were met with some opposition. I'm still concerned that the sources used do not meet our BLP policies and that some of the sources are questionable. I'd greatly appreciate any additional feedback on the sources. Mike V • Talk 23:49, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Is there anything that makes Center for Investigative Reporting an unreliable or biased source? I'm concerned about this [59]. Thundermaker ( talk) 03:47, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Since editors here are experienced in sourcing, if you've the time, please comment on the page move request here. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:26, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
Looking at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine#Virginitiphobia article, and other phobia articles created by PlanetStar, a long list of phobia articles created by that editor, some are sourced solely to [60] and/or [61] - are these sources that we should be using? See for instance Nostophobia. It's easy to create articles if you find a rubbish list somewhere and use that as a source. Dougweller ( talk) 15:54, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
This is more of a general than specific problem. The Camp Trans article is almost entirely based on unreliable sources such as Internet forums, Google Groups posts, LiveJournal blog entries, transcripts of conversations on AOL Instant Messenger, and press releases and other files hosted on scribd (most if not all now deleted). That is, it's almost entirely original research based on unreliable sources. I've removed many of these and requested new sources. But more eyes are needed on this article by those familiar with our sourcing policies. It's possible that the article needs to be deleted, but I suspect adequate sources can be found to keep at least some of the material. Skyerise ( talk) 21:36, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:Acupuncture#Academic_centers (stable version here) there's been discussion of how to source the fact that multiple medical centers use acupuncture. Some editors have argued that the websites of these centers (e.g. Osher Medical Center at Harvard) are fine; others have argued that they are not because they are "primary sources". IMO, this is a case where a primary source is fine per WP:SELFSOURCE not to mention WP:SENSE. What do you folks think? (Relevant section of article here.) -- Middle 8 ( contribs • COI) 05:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC) (edited 05:27, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 05:40, 13 October 2014 (UTC), 08:01, 13 October 2014 (UTC)
Is this article at iFanboy [66] reliable for the following 2 statements at The Punisher (1993 video game):
Thanks in advance. Freikorp ( talk) 11:37, 19 October 2014 (UTC)
This edit http://www.haaretz.com/jewish-world/high-holy-days-2014/high-holy-day-news-and-features/.premium-1.619440 has been removed on the grounds that
The article fails WP:V since it is accessible only to subscribers. The source itself is an online newspaper, known to be leftist, hardly a WP:RS for the origins of religious traditions. The article makes non-mainstream claims, admitting that they are speculative. The writer is a popularizer at most, whose credentials are unclear. As can be seen on this list of his recent articles he makes large claims, giving the impression his articles are more about sensation than academic reliability. The first claim has now been withdrawn. I have argued that this is an RS. The newspaper is perfectly acceptable and the writer's other articles if they are indeed relevant, do not justify the term sensational.
Author Elon Gilad
Article Sukkot Theredheifer ( talk) 19:22, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
The origins of Sukkot are both historical and agricultural. Based on its timing and the fact that it is frequently referred to in the Bible as "the holiday of ingathering," meaning harvest, it is believed that the holiday evolved from ancient agricultural religious practices. Over time it was formalized, centralized and given religious significance. [1]
+
Sukkot became a significant holiday during King Josiah’s reign. However, the tiny city of Jerusalem would have been unable to house the great influx of pilgrims coming to worship in the Temple. Unable to find lodging, the pilgrims would have had to erect temporary dwellings – little huts that became known as sukkot. The holiday gradually became associated with the sukkot themselves, which took on a national-historical meaning correlated with the Exodus, as is reflected in the (late) biblical passages. [2]
As was the norm with all Jewish holidays during the Temple period, the holiday centered on animal sacrifice at the Temple. 70 bulls were sacrificed during each Sukkot, as well as numerous other animals. After the temple was destroyed by Titus in 70 CE, the Jewish religion went through a major change, and the temple sacrifices could no longer be observed. Thus further emphasis came to be ascribed to the sukkah, the four species, and prayer. [3]
Theredheifer ( talk) 17:00, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
References
It seems that there are sourcing issues on the article Pit Bull. I am leaning toward sources like Veterinary Associations. There is POV warring using a very old and misinterpreted CDC study and the article is not really about pit bulls so much as support for the POV that pit bulls are nature's killing machines. I understand this is different from the sourcing issue but I would appreciate some consensus building advice. I am not sure if posting references here will work and have the refs show up properly so I will come back tommorow and repair if the refs are not working rights. I think this is kind the ideal type of RS https://www.avma.org/KB/Resources/LiteratureReviews/Pages/The-Role-of-Breed-in-Dog-Bite-Risk-and-Prevention.aspx Wikidgood ( talk) 03:45, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I first thought about opening a thread on RSN actually re RS(medical) because some people seem to think that the ONLYlegitimate refs for bio med articles are things like BMJ and JAMA. But I insist that it is OK to use sources like Rueters and mainstream newspapers, including third world newspapers, for things like "Hospital Researcher Announces New Vaccine". I think the area of disagreement is that some people think that we have to worry about false hopes being raised by hucksters. That is a concern but it doesnt IMHO mean that you have to wait six months for a peer reveiwed journal article when it is a fact of history that, say, a Thailand Hospital research team has a vaccine in testing phase with animal trials. So I was hoping that there would be a similar refinement on dog bit related pages where we distinguish between an article in a newspaper stating thatthere will be say a city council ordinance on pit bulls in a place like Denver, that does these things, and we allow that as RS for that kind of thing. But we do not take it as RS if a newspaper, especially a sleazy rag or something between a sleazy rag and NYT, Wash Post or AP/UPI?Reuters blasts a headline identifying a dog as a "pit bull" becauses some old boozer down the street told the press that such and such a dog is a "pit bull". For encyclopedic statements aboutwhat is and is not true about a breed identification we need a source which is (a) secondary (b) preferably peer reviewed. If it is not (b) or if it is (advoccy), then we can present it if we identify it as a statement of an advocacy group, and/or if we balance it with a contrasting view, a criticism or at least a label that it is controversial. Does this resonate? Wikidgood ( talk) 04:41, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
I think advocates are essential sources for perspectives and so I think there is need of good Wiki policies and guidelines which prevent people from reverting any advocate as not RS just because they are POV. A good example is that RT Russia Today is very slanted but it is probably RS for things like "Putin has a black dog". Similarly, Interpretermag (not sure I spelled it right) is vigorously anti Putin but is probably RS for much. But some editors claim that some sources are NEVER RS for ANYTHING and I suspect that problem will look large on pit bull in the coming weeks. Wikidgood ( talk) 05:06, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
There's an odd case at the Summerwind article (scrutinized because it's in AfD).
There is a charge that three writers, Corey Schjoth of the Huffington Post, Bill Wundram of the Quad-City Times and Chad Lewis of Wisconsin Trails / Milwaukee Journal Sentinel are not reliable sources because they have "written about" paranormal legends such as UFO's, Vampires, Bigfoot, ghosts, etc.. Are these writers, or any other for that matter, not reliable sources solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past? -- Oakshade ( talk) 19:32, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
In 1916 it was purchased by Robert Patterson Lamont, who employed Chicago architects Tallmadge and Watson to substantially remodel the property and convert it into a mansion. [1] [2] [3]
{{
cite news}}
: CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)CS1 maint: url-status (
link)
The real issue is what content supported by what reference in what article with what weight is being proposed. Without these specifics its generally not fair to evaluate a source. A writer who is a generalist, that is writes about multiple topics may not be the best source for an expert opinion on any specific subject. However, unless we know more about the content and its source I don't believe we should be making any definitive comments about sources. Id' take this back to the talk page (is there one) and try top get input there.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 17:19, 20 October 2014 (UTC))
This edit warring is continuing with a single editor now removing all of these sources. [69] Input to this question is highly appreciated.-- Oakshade ( talk) 02:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
At issue is if these sources are sufficient to state that Davis graduated at the top of her class. [70]
-- NeilN talk to me 16:24, 14 October 2014 (UTC)
solely based on fact of them having written about such topics in the past Wikidgood ( talk) 00:00, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
Hi - wanted to get opinions on whether the following sources can be considered reliable for the article I'm working on User:Drcarver/CoSign_by_ARX:
1) Source: Legal IT Professionals
Content:
Digital signatures, which are based on Public Key Infrastructure (PKI) technology...are the result of a cryptographic operation that creates a ‘fingerprint’ unique to both the signer and the content, so that they cannot be copied, forged or tampered with. This process provides proof of signer identity, data integrity and the non-repudiation of signed documents, all of which can be verified without the need for proprietary verification software.
2) Source: Bio-IT World
Content:
Industries of focus include life science (particularly research and clinical trials
3) Source: EngineeringNews.co.za
Content:
Cosign is used in...Africa
4) Source: DataManager.IT
Content:
In August 2014, CoSign became the first remote / server-side digital signature solution to receive Common Criteria EAL4+ certification
Drcarver ( talk) 09:46, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
I have just reverted these two edits from JLSperling1 ( talk · contribs) to the article HMAS Southern Cross, which were attributed to this document.
The document is available from "StoryNT", which appears to be a Northern Territory government project to collate and present online user-submitted stories and documents. I am concerned that this document (and documents from StoryNT in general) do not meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, particularly as the project is soliciting user-submitted content, and does not appear to exercise any editorial control or fact-checking of submissions. The Disclaimer/Conditions of Use document includes ominous statements like "... although the Northern Territory Library (NTL) endeavours to monitor the quality and integrity of the information on this site, it does not guarantee that the information is complete or correct." and "The information in these collections does not constitute endorsement by NTL, as the sources are outside our control." Submissions to the project are usually released online after 1 working day.
In regard to the source in question, although framed as a document about the ship in question, the content focuses more on the activities and experiences of one of the sailors. The author appears (based on surname similarity) to be a descendant of the sailor in question. The content added to the article was from after the sailor's service aboard the vessel, so is likely to be of unspecified secondhand origin.
Was I wrong in reverting this content, or are my concerns about the quality of the source valid? -- saberwyn 08:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
The article on Eric Diesel contains many sources that don't seem to be reliable. For example speeches (or introductory biographies given at speeches):
He directs the T.H. Huxley and Aldous Huxley Family Foundation, works and lectures in the field of neuroethics, and is active in political issues involving Korea, California ecology, and care for the elderly and dependent adults. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
- ^ Biography of PAVA English Language Public Relations Manager Eric “Oops” Diesel, Kodak Theater Du Doong II festival brochure, Pacific American Volunteer Association, Los Angeles, CA, December 5, 2007
- ^ Korean Veterans Memorial Unveiling Ceremony transcript, Hae Soung Kim, War Memorial Park, Glenora CA, May 22, 2009
- ^ Introductory Biography of Speaker Eric John Diesel, '”Laura Archera Huxley in Memory” , Paul M. Fleiss, M.D., Proceedings of The Fourth International Aldous Huxley Symposium, Huntington Library, 31 July – 2 August 2008
- ^ Korean Veterans of America President’s Address, Hae Soung Kim, Korean Veterans Award Ceremony, Los Angeles CA, December 7, 2007
- ^ Consciousness, Ethics, and Empathy in Superintelligent Computers, Introductory Biography of Speaker Eric John Diesel, Olivia de Haulleville, Evolution of Consciousness Lecture Series, Joshua Tree Transmission Theater, CA, 6-2-2011
Some of the sources don't reference any publication, for example:
In 2009, he received the Meritorious Service Medal from Korean Veterans, and the Ambassador for Peace Award from the Republic of (South) Korea in 2007. [1] In 2006, he received a Certificate of Appreciation from the City of Los Angeles for “exemplary achievement in his field and notable contributions to society”. [2]
- ^ Seh-Jik Park, Certification of Meritorious Service Medal presented to Mr. Eric Diesel
- ^ City of Los Angeles, Tom LaBonge, Councilmember 4th District
Another issue is that, throughout the article, references are clustered together making it impossible to tell which source refers to which specific information. Lampuser ( talk) 04:21, 27 October 2014 (UTC)