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 178 | Archive 179 | Archive 180 | Archive 181 | Archive 182 | → | Archive 185 |
Something that occurs to me after reading about all this GamerGate stuff -- is it appropriate to consider pieces of media reliable sources for controversies that they themselves are the subject of? Extending that, what about pieces of media owned by the same company (for example if a Gawker property is subject of a controversy are other Gawker properties RS)?
It seems...inappropriate to consider something an RS for a topic when it has an express business interest in taking a particular bias in it's coverage, which is always going to be the case when it's the subject of a controversy (in the case of GamerGate, Kotaku [for example] needs it to not be about ethics in journalism and alleged misbehavior of some of it's writers as much as possible because it makes them look terrible, and so have an express interest in not representing it as being about those things, as potentially does Gawker as a whole). Schadrach ( talk) 12:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank TRPoD for pointing me here. Anyways, I'm probably using this for the fivethousanth time, but "Employee X of Gawker media did not do y. [1] Source: Gawker Media". Gawker Media and its network of news/blog sites, depending on which day of the week it is, should not, under any circumstance, be considered reliable, being described as a tabloid. Additionally, the only instance where Gawker should be cited, is for the section on Operation Baby Seal (in which gamers and others are emailing Google and Amazon themselves to report proven violations of their ad systems). If anything, Gawker media should be blacklisted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, if anything, given their low, low standards of "reporting", bloglike nature, and otherwise low quality "news". Clickbait. It's nothing but clickbait. -- DSA510 Pls No H8 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish to know whether this is a reliable source in the context of establishing Sarbajit Roy's notability, the article is facing a RfD. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 10:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks NebY after my faux pas with Hindustan Today I wanted to be a little careful and the agency didn't look perfect so I brought it here. Regardless of the outcome of the said discussion, I feel the subject is notable enough, for a stand alone article, and I will be more careful if/when I appeal the deletion. Thanks one more time. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this reliable to use in the Barelvi article? It seems to be the site of the movement : http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/waseela.php" (it is to be used to add that they have a practice called " Waseela")
& is this a reliable source: https://www.academia.edu/7643961/Anti-Americanism_in_Indonesia_and_Pakistan" (to be used to add a link to Nahdlatul Ulama in the see also section of the Barelvi article with the headline "similar traditional movement". Lagoonaville ( talk) 05:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
We are well aware of your thoughts on this matter. I would like to hear feedback from the users on this noticeboard. Lagoonaville ( talk) 04:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If the information is accurate and backed by other sources why wouldnt it be? This website is dedicated to barelvi movement. Lagoonaville ( talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
'"Barelvi Islam is closely tied to the devotion to pirs and belief in their powers of intercession (wasilah)"'. State and ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan. Page 84 [9]
"Darul Uloom (Pretoria) was the first fully-fledged Barelwi madrasah. It was established in 1989, at a time when the Deobandi-Barelwi confclit in South Africa was at its peaks. During the 1980s, Deobandi attacks had heightened against popular Sufi practices such as the visitation to shrines of Sufi saints, the celebration of Muhammad’s birth (mawlid), and against beliefs in the intercession of saints (tawassul)"' Muslim Schools and E'ducation in Europe and South Africa).page 76 [10]
"According to Barelwi scholar, Muhammad is no mere mortal. He possesses ‘ilm al-ghayb (knowledge of the unknown) and is the primary focus for tawassul (intercession) with God". Encyclopaedia of Islam.page 88 [11]
'"Barelvis believe in the wasilah (higher standing or great religious status) of dead saints and their brakkah (spiritual power, blessings, holiness), to be found in their shrines". Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Egypt and Iran. page 399 [12]
"The only reformist school which has vindicated the full Sufi heritage, is that of the Barelwis who have been joined by the Naqshbandis; their practice of Sufism may be compared to that of the Indonesian Nathdlatul Ulama.” Varieties of Religious Authority: Changes and Challenges in 20th Century Indonesian Islam. Page 8 [13] Lagoonaville ( talk) 00:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas. You are welcome to join in on the conversation; reliable sources are also welcome! RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 ( talk) 06:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
All the specs in that site of the motorcycle are been used to expand and as a source to the /info/en/?search=Kawasaki_GPZ305 wikipedia article
Thanks Orendona ( talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
These sites, used as a reliable source in the Gamergate_controversy, claim or insinuate, in these articles
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate The Guardian Quote: The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda, None of you fucking #gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I’m not even a tough target, he tweeted. Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/24/gamergate-targets-felicia-day-after-she-expresses-fear-of-being-targeted/ Washington Post Quote: Day was worried that if she spoke up about Gamergate, she would be viciously harassed by the same torch-bearing misogynists who have targeted feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and developers Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn. Well, she was right.
My emphasis. The 'vicious harassment' attributed is based on the same as the Times and WP: a post who claims no affiliation.
http://time.com/3535619/felicia-day-writes-about-gamergate-gets-information-hacked/ Times Quote: Supernatural actress and avid gamer Felicia Day took to her Tumblr to talk about #GamerGate on Thursday and, perhaps unsurprisingly, was immediately harassed. Though #GamerGaters claim that they are
that the movement GamerGate is reponsible for harassing and doxxing her, something that the Gamergate article in Wikipedia reflects. However, they are based on a commentary (which one of the articles link: http://imgur.com/UAcmAg1) that do not claim affiliation to any movements, nor makes reference to a movement. At the very best this is rumor mongering and at worst it's straight dishonest, and spreading lies isn't the characteristic of reliable sources. -- Zakkarum ( talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, folks.
I deleted some long-unsourced material from BDSM page. The material had been tagged for 2 months or more, but no RS's came forth. (There remains still more unsourced and tagged material.) User:RobinHood70 wants to restore the deleted material, using as sources amateur websites maintained by BDSM enthusiasts, and acknowledging that "I take it as a given that some sources will be less than ideal for the simple reason that BDSM is not often covered in mainstream non-fiction literature." [15]
The sites User:RobinHood70 proposes as sources are:
Although I am sympathetic to the problem, my own view is that WP is not a fan cite and that if the material does not receive coverage by RS's, then the material does not belong in an encyclopedia. That is, we don't lower are standards to justify material; we have a standard and include the material that meets it.
The exact statements being restored are:
(Other material being restored properly sourced there is no issue with.)
Thanks for any input.
— James Cantor (
talk) 00:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A small side note that's not really about RS: Without prejudice to anyone, I'd caution against taking material out solely because a sentence is without a citation. We're only supposed to remove material if it's unsourced as well as somehow likely to be challenged. If the sentences look like they could be considered fairly accurate and easily verifiable from sourced material on a related Wikipedia page, then it can be left in while discussed (since this is not a BLP). The next sentence is a good example that doesn't necessarily require an additional inline citation: The term
sadomasochism is derived from the words sadism and masochism (see
Etymology).
__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
At the article Ludovico Arroyo Bañas, there are several usages of a source from Angelfire, which I believe falls under WP:SPS. The source is as follows: http://www.angelfire.com/pq/telecommunications/ . It appears to have a bibliography, but no in-line citations. Please provide opinions.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Just want to confirm that opinions on the discussions.apple.com website would not constitute a reliable source. I know this is a simple one, and is realistically cut and dry WP:USERGENERATED but an IP user insists it's reliable. The subject item is https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-3036 and is related to MacKeeper.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
EllenCT ( talk) 03:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Both sources are review articles in journals. Nothing to really address here in terms of reliability sources, although it does look like caution is needed in separating fact summarized in the reviews from the opinions and conclusions made by the authors. As Yobol mentioned, seems like the current statements picked are a matter of weight and not really the purpose of this board. Especially since we're dealing with statements that all appear to be pro-e-cig (or really whenever you are saying something is a positive or negative) that's an obvious question for weight. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been repeatedly trying to update the wiki Matt Taylor (scientist) to mention the existence of an IndieGogo campaign relating to him. As evidence that this campaign exists, I have cited it as a reference. The edit keeps being deleted on the pretext that IndieGogo is not a "reliable source", and the evidence should come at second hand from, say, a newspaper website. This is obviously absurd. What more reliable source could there be for the existence of an IndieGogo fundraising campaign than the thing itself? How can providing the primary source for an assertion be seen as unreliable? Specifically I am trying to quote the rationale stated by the campaign organiser for starting the campaign. The evidence for this is on the campaign page, and nowhere else. If the actual, primary evidence for it is regarded as "unreliable", then that is tantamount to saying that this information can never be placed on wikipedia. But why shouldn't it be?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
That's a deeply questionable stance to take for all sorts of reasons - pehaps primarily the assumption that something only matters once the mainstream media have noticed it and decided to talk about it - although in this particular case an independent secondary source (Yahoo news) has noticed it and mentioned it in a report. My point, though, was about the absurdity of the idea that the existence of something (in this case a crowdfund campaign) cannot be reliably attested by primary reference to that thing, which was the pretext for removing my edit. The discussion now seems to have moved on from there, but I still think it should be noted in all future such cases that primary sources are allowed on wikipedia: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - and that there is a common sense clause in the policy. It must therefore be regarded as in compliance with policy on sources to prove an assertion that an IndieGogo campaign exists by providing a link to that campaign in the references as a primary source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
Except I wasn't talking about any of those irrelevant things you just dragged in, I was arguing specifically that where a claim that an IndieGogo campaign exists is made, providing the link to it as a reference is an entirely reasonable way of verifying the claim, and this really ought to be acknowledged as not being in contravention of any policy on sources. The common sense policy is for the birds, it seems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
Aren't you shifting the goalposts again there? I wasn't citing it to demonstrate that it was noteworthy, I was citing it to prove it exists. The noteworthiness is a separate issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
No, you are not listening to me. I agree that not everything is necessarily worthy of mention in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia comes to decisions on whether things are worthy of writing about in a vague, mutual way. I'm not seeking to change that, but it is separate from how assertions are validated in articles. Assuming that the existence of this campaign were adjudged noteworthy, how else could or should it and its aims be attested other than by reference to it? I am pointing out a specific instance of where your policies are not working sufficiently well, for someone who is not trying to "spam the site" (unless you are using a very creative and individual definition of "spam"). In discussion with someone else I encountered the view that "it's... unreliable because it's a primary source". What that says about the way wikipedia sources information is really quite worrying. It is obviously in everyone's interests that common sense should be applied in such cases. I'm surprised that this point has encountered such bloody-minded resistance. And I wish you would stop assuming bad faith about me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
This exchange appears to be fruitless since you're not prepared to engage in an open spirit, and also since the discussion on the relevant article has (I hope) moved on to the more material questions of noteworthiness and the neutrality of my edit (which I have tried to address with a suggested new wording; and I am happy to acknowledge that I support the campaign, but there is no valid reason why that should preclude me from writing about it, and it has no bearing whatsoever on its noteworthiness). But I find your attitude to this perplexing and not at all reassuring.
http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/bundesliga/startseite/616467/artikel_bayern-mitglieder-feiern-abwesenden-hoeness.html was used to support the statement that FC Bayern Munich has "over 251,000 members" and therefore is considered "the biggest club in the world". First some background. Not all football clubs have memberships. So some clubs may have more supporters, or rank higher on Forbes' list of most successful sports franchises. This is only about members. Second, one fan of a club that doesn't keep accurate records, Portuguese club Benfica, has taken offence to the change. He claims that UEFA doesn't support that statement, but doesn't offer any proof from the organization. He claims that Guiness World Records doesn't support it, but again, no support. I believe that even if they offered contradicting claims, it doesn't nullify the new RS and their claims may need to be updated. Also, even if they contradict, it's not incorrect to use the source unless it's not reliable. We add additional statements with the countering claims. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I am currently in a dispute with another editor (who seems to have walked away from the discussion) over whether
the quote from Rachel Feltman in the
"Shirt controversy" section of the Matt Taylor article is from a newsblog at The Washington Post or from The Washington Post itself. I maintain that the text "Rachel Feltman runs The Post's Speaking of Science blog."
at the end of the
Washington Post article clearly identifies that Speaking of Science is a newsblog and not the Washington Post itself. The other editor responded
here that the format of the URL indicates that it is not a blog, but part of The Washington Post's news reporting.
It is obvious that we have a disagreement and I am bringing the issue here to get someone else to look at it, since no one else has commented in the discussion. The discussion is at the article talk page 70.133.154.32 ( talk) 02:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"Speaking of Science is not a WP:NEWSBLOG — it is specifically a part of The Washington Post's regular news coverage and is reported and edited as such"which is what brought me here to ask if it is a newsblog. How we use opinion pieces is also important. None of the other sources are being used to support a one-word quote like the one in
which she described as "sexist"just prior to the long quote from Feltman's piece. 70.133.154.32 ( talk) 05:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The discussion here pointed the way to an "olive branch" solution that seems to have worked. 70.133.154.32 ( talk) 02:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
We're currently discussing Yet Another Cleaner and its pending deletion and the only so-called reliable source we have mentioning this (IMO Rogue) software is an "Editor's Review" by CNET Staff. [21] Unfortunately, I can't agree that this would constitute a reliable source because of the fact that the article contains affiliate links, meaning that for every purchase this article promotes, CNET makes a commission.
Examples: "Get Winzip Standard" [22], "MS Office for $139.99" [23], "Upgrade to YAC Anti-Malware Premium for only $20.00" [24]
These are all clearly affiliate links which earn CNET financial reward for virtually any software it praises. I find it hard to believe that these would be considered good things to cite, let alone being the deciding factor on why obscure software should have its own article on WP. Opinions? - JakobusVP ( talk) 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, If I am correctly understanding, this noticeboard serves to check the authenticity of a particular source used in an Wikipedia article. The source in question is: Brown KW, McGoldrick T, Buchanan R (1997). "Body dysmorphic disorder: Seven cases treated with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing". Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 25 (02): 203–207. The reference is being used in its entirety simply to demonstrate one of a number of psychological conditions other than Post-traumatic Stress Disorder under investigation with EMDR therapy. Thank You Saturn Explorer ( talk) 05:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you BullRangifer. Here is the usage of the aforementioned reference. As you can see, reference #32 was tagged: "Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder,[28] anxiety disorders,[29][verification needed] somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain,[30][31] body dysmorphic disorder,[32][verification needed] depression[33] and psychosis.[34]Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder,[28] anxiety disorders,[29][verification needed] somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain,[30][31] body dysmorphic disorder,[32][verification needed] depression[33] and psychosis."[34] Saturn Explorer ( talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that reference #29 has very recently been tagged as well: Gauvreau P, Bouchard S (2008). "Preliminary evidence for the efficacy of EMDR in treating generalized anxiety disorder". Journal of EMDR Practice and Research 2 (1): 26–40. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.2.1.26. Thanks you, again. Saturn Explorer ( talk) 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. Thank you BullRangifer. Saturn Explorer ( talk) 04:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I should say this makes sense from the perspective of matured scientific publishing and from a perspective that seeks to both inform and protect the public from misunderstanding or even inadvertently misleadking implications. This is the venerable perspective of Wikipedia and the whole reason for your comments. However, I would refrain from blanket labeling JEMDR as "junk science." JEMDR has many serious contributors and it is peer reviewed. True, it does not react the level of excellence of a JAMA or Nature, etc., but it's intent extends beyond self-promotion. I rather think of JEMDR as a laboratory for a variety of contributors and contributions exploring a serious subject of both science and healing art, shich has already shown very significant effectiveness, at a relativel early phase of that subject. Saturn Explorer ( talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
These sources [25] [26] are actually reliable for claiming Pakistan's victory during the Battle of Chawinda?
Until the introduction of these sources, the result parameter was referred as "Stalemate" due to the UN mandated ceasefire. [27], [28], [29] But I really doubt if other two [30] [31] are reliable enough for claiming the results, since they are outdated and they cannot overlap the sources that are dated and have enough expertise in the field. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, for one last time, I'll try to be clearer assuming that you really have no clue of the way it is referenced. The source in question is ""Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian (364). 14 September 1965. p. 1.". It is a complete source (ideally it should have had no link / url to it but I added one from a talkpage discussion as a courtesy so that people may read if they do not have that 50 years old newspaper in their library). The nativepakistan link (that you copied from this mentioned source), the second one in your above comment, has a scanned copy of the same and has nothing to do with its own credibility because it is not the source rather just a copy of it for verification. Is that easy enough to get? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Another editor has accused these sources of being unreliable in the context of the New World article. Are they?
Thanks! -- Whattheheyhey ( talk) 06:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Some time ago one Ellen Pugh was added to Madoc. At the time I wrote "In a rather odd footnote, an editor writes " Ellen Pugh career: Western Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve University), Cleveland, OH, cataloger, 1943-45; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, cataloger, 1945-47; Cincinnati Public Library, Cincinnati, OH, branch librarian, 1955-58; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, order librarian, 1958-63; University of Oregon, Eugene, cataloger, 1963-65; University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, cataloger, 1965-68; Washington State University, Pullman, serials librarian, 1969-" - she was also described as a Welsh historian, although she obviously isn't. She was a librarian with evidently no training in history. Emory & Henry College emeritus professor of history Eugene L. Rasor said of her that she "speculated about Prince Madoc but not convincingly". I can't see any way that she can be a reliable source for anything historical. Dougweller (talk) 11:59 am, 15 April 2013, Monday (1 year, 7 months, 18 days ago) (UTC+1)"
That's great, but it's still pretty clear that Pugh doesn't meet our sourcing policy. Also, being from Wales does not make one a reliable source on Welsh medieval literature. And it's not just Pugh, it's also Zella Armstrong who you added to a related article you created, Cronica Walliae. She's not a specialist in the area and she published the book you use. I also see at Talk:Cronica Walliae that you have a pending DYK, nominated by another editor, at Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. It says "that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae Prince Madoc had already made two trips to America from Wales in the year 1170, long before Columbus?". I've edited the actual article to remove the 'long before Columbus' and the suggestion that Prince Madoc was real. As it stands the DYK is pushing a fringe position because it is written in an NPOV fashion. Dougweller ( talk) 16:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This ejournal resembles the Journal of Experimental Psychology in title. It claims PsycInfo listed, but does not appear there, nor in PubMed. Is it credible as a MEDRS? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed User:McGeddon recently removed all references to the website http://devicespecifications.com in at least the MediaTek article, because this user believes the site is not a reliable source because of the disclaimer about accuracy it displays. An earlier discussion about this is present in the archives Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#.22Not_responsible_for_inaccuracies_or_other_errors.22. In the previous discussion, several people made the point that such disclaimers are common and do not suggest that the information on the website is inaccurate.
While the website seems to be a fairly anonymous, large collection of information about smartphone models and there are likely to be a few errors on the website, I believe the site is generally accurate with regard to the information about processor chips used in smartphones, for which it was used as a reference in the MediaTek article amongst others, although I understand that better references such as manufacturer's websites would be preferable.
While one could question whether the exhaustive lists of devices in, for example, the MediaTek article are a good idea, I don't think the references should be deleted because the Wikipedia Reliable Sources guideline does not apply in this case. Calamites ( talk) 23:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp Is this source legit for academic or professional purposes, and how can I check if it's up to date? ( N0n3up ( talk) 13:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
Or what about this?: http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/MEDIEVAL_GROWTH.pdf Even though it was probably from 2010, it might serve as a better or a recent source. Then again in the population section, I don't know how to tell exactly the population numbers. ( N0n3up ( talk) 05:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC))
@ The Four Deuces: Right, but I was looking for a more general info in the population of medieval countries, specially Italy and Flander, whose info in here say that Italy and Flanders the most urbanised regions, and for example, the population of Italy seems similar from the two sources provided [40] here ( N0n3up ( talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC))
I couldn't find anything in the archives on TechWhirl, so I wanted to open a discussion here before using it. The site has some basic information about Content management, Technical writing and Technical communication. The site's History page provides information about its founding and ownership, and the articles published there are written by experts in the field, but there doesn't seem to be any information about editorial policies. The information they provide is accurate, but I understand that my assurance of that isn't a valid means of proving a source's reliability; I'm just one editor and that's just my personal opinion. Does anyone see any potential problems with using this as a source? Or will it pass? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Is casaparticularcuba.org a reliable source? User:Songonero wants to use it in the article Casa particular, specifically sourcing it to the content found here (permalink). Our conversation can be found User talk:Apparition11#Casa_Particular. I think that it looks like simple ref spam, but the editor adding it (also the creator of the article) used it to write the article and wants further input on its reliability and appropriateness. Thanks. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 21:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Just looking for some clarification, as I am not sure. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-31/breakaway-buddhists-take-aim-dalai-lama is the article.
Quote is:
Barnett says the Dalai Lama discouraged rituals aimed at Dorje Shugden starting in the 1970s, but some members of the clergy ignored him and carried on with the tradition. So in 1996, he prohibited his followers from engaging in Shugden rituals altogther. What has happened since then, Barnett says, is that Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community have faced persecution. And he says the Dalai Lama’s administration hasn’t dealt with that very well.
This is reporting by the Journalist, but issue has come up whether it is usable in a wikipedia article because the journalist doesn't put it in direct quotes ("Barnett says "The Dalai Lama discouraged.." To use it the article wouldn't mean saying this is a DIRECT quote from Barnett, but that its reported this was said.
The article in question is Dorje Shugden Controversy. Thanks! Prasangika37 ( talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Kermit Gosnell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has the sentence "In April 2013, 71 other Members of Congress joined Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn in a letter condemning the media "blackout" on the Gosnell trial". The sources are [42] which is a pro-life website, and The Hill. [43] I don't see the pro-life website as an RS but it does link to copies of the letters, eg [44]. The letters don't actually use the word blackout, although Blackburn used it in a statement. There was some media coverage but not much until April 15th, according to the article. Her letters were sent on the 17th. Hm, this is one of those reports that as I write it makes me wonder if I'm at the right board, as it looks as though this was more for publicity than anything else, being done 2 days after major coverage started if I've got that right, and might be WP:UNDUE. Still, there's certainly the issue of lifesitenews as an RS. Dougweller ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
1. Source. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/moorman-polaroid/
2. Article. Mary Moorman
3. Content. "Moorman sold her original photograph of the assassination for $175,000 in an eBay live auction in January 2008."
Alec Selwyn-Holmes, the author of the Iconic Photos blog, posted this July 21, 2009. Conversely, Christopher Bonanos, an editor at New York Magazine and author of Instant: The Story of Polaroid, stated on February 2, 2012: "Moorman still lives in Dallas, and reportedly still has her original print, despite a report (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) that she sold it in 2008 for $175,000." [45] Thank you! - Location ( talk) 06:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I am mediating a case concerning Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on WP:DRN. This case has an interesting sourcing issue, and I would like some advice. It appears that a lot of media sources in Russia -- and not just the ones officially controlled by the government -- tell a completely different story than sources in the US and EU. How do I determine which, if any, are reliable? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict. Stickee (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The incident we're discussing occurred well into a brutal propaganda war between the west and Russia. Media from all parts of the world was already playing its (sometimes unintended) role in that propaganda war. The plane's crash simply caused a massive escalation in that propaganda war. It's a time when almost all media must be consistently questioned. My recommendation has therefore always been for that article to ignore ALL speculation about the crash from anyone, along with all statements from politicians. Removing such content from the article would remove problems with sources, would do no damage to the genuine informational content of the article, and would make it overall a much better one that Wikipedia could be proud of. Right now it's a propaganda tool itself Of course the Russia haters among the self-appointed owners of the article detest my approach. One can only wonder why. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict." I am fully aware of who is involved in the the conflict and who the regulars here at the RSNB are. While I don't in any way discount or devalue input from the former, I have heard much of it already as I have been crawling through the article talk page archives. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
More generally, I'd like to point out that you can't ask about the reliability of "Russian media" in general. That's not what this board is for and that's not how we evaluate reliability of sources (by their nationality?). What you can do, is take specific sources and ask about them. Obviously, some Russian media will be reliable, and some Russian media will be unreliable. Just like some American media will be reliable and some American media will not be reliable. So you have to ask about or discuss specific sources not a blanket category such as this one. The question is ill posed. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A blog [52] entry is being inserted as a source in several articles by User:StephMac1981 when the blog itself is written by a Stephen T. McErleane. While I must say I agree with his assertions that the "French fort" was indeed actually an Indian fortification (other Native American villages in Upstate New York were called "castles") there is no reliable source that states this. His blog entry fails our RS standards based on being published in an open blog that is not peer reviewed in any manner. Plus the fact that the blog itself advocates its very use by individuals for the purpose of being the source to link to. It is a blatant end run around our OR requirements by creating a pseudo-RS to "publish" one's own OR and then link to it. Plus, the problems inherent in any possible link between StephMac1981 and the author Stephen T. McErleane. Just because one's personal research is correct, and Stephen's research IS, that doesn't mean Wikipedia can use it as a source. Unfortunately, a preeminent scholar on Albany history Jack McEneny (literally wrote the book on Albany) uses the story of the French fortification. The best we can do is simply ignore the story and omit it entirely, but we can not claim it has been debunked or false. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
− ::( edit conflict) x2 Actually they haven't edited their user page but the person is registered. There's a difference. I have now posted on their talk page about this discussion, so you can find them that way. I forgot to put User: that is my fault. The articles in question include, but not limited to- Fort Nassau (North River) which I have reverted, and Castle Island (New York) which I have not as I am waiting for this discussion. May also include other Albany, New York articles specified in the blog as articles that should be edited, and which the author states he may and that his blog should be used as the link as the reference source. McEneny uses the story in his book, Albany: Capital City on the Hudson. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Removing the challenged material (fort and no fort) until an independent RS can be found looks like the most appropriate thing to do. If editors decide that the blogger is considered an expert with a history of being published by third-party RS, then it might be okay, but someone would have to make that case (and preferably not the author himself). __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A few things: 1) I did not write that the French fort was actually an Indian fortification. I wrote that there is no reliable evidence that the French fort existed and that the likely source of this myth is woefully unreliable for reasons I explained in the blog post. My point that the island was likely named after the Indian fortifications is tangential to my main point. (I did not edit the Wikipedia article to say such a thing.) What I wrote was that Charles Gehring, who has 40 years of experience with such things, surmised that it was. I trust the reader to do with that information what he'd like. 2) Perhaps Wikipedia does have a policy that prohibits using blogs as a citation. The great irony here, of course, is that McEneneny's book is wrong. 3) I can't use my research as a source. Again, if Wikipedia has foolish policies, so be it. The blog post is an elaboration too long to put in the page. It has citations. Citing a statement does not give it validity. (Even if it is some awful 19th-century book from Google Books.) It gives it a basis that can stand or fall based on the reader's evaluation. 4) The myth is in the public memory as evidence by its presence on 3 (or more) Wikipedia pages. So at the least my assertion that the first European fortification was not French could have been changed to something like "The story that the first European fortification was a French castle is of questionable authenticity." Then one can site my blog post. If one dares. Stephmac1981 ( talk) 23:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Which book presses are reputable? Just curious. Stephmac1981 ( talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I get the policy, and I get why it exists. However, editor discretion should be permitted. But I don't want to get bogged down in that discussion.... I initially thought that my assertion that there was no French fort was removed. Fair enough. But then Camelbinky just reverted the page back to the old version that says that the French had a castle on the island, something that s/he knows to be false. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do would be to remove the reference to the French fort altogether. Stephmac1981 ( talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"For 300 years people of Albany believed it to be true." What's your source for that? Stephmac1981 ( talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought you might have had a pearl of information hidden in your lecture to me on public memory. I've spent enough time worrying about Wikipedia. Take care. Stephmac1981 ( talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
At SWAT, the only source used in the lead, and the only source providing a general description of SWAT police, is a children's book called "Police Swat Teams: Life on High Alert," a part of the "Extreme Careers" series [53]. The Rosen Publishing Group explains,
Twenty Attention-Grabbing Career Titles Guaranteed to Get Your Middle Schoolers Thinking About Their Future This compelling new series for the middle school reader is designed to appeal to the thrill seeker in all of us. Each book includes information about a different extreme career, with a focus on safety and training. Readers will learn what it takes to get into these professions and what to expect when embarking on one. These volumes also provide information on the exciting aspects of these extreme careers and highlight the possible dangers and risks involved. Colorful photographs and informative sidebars help to make these books an invaluable resource for those young readers looking for a thrilling and fun-filled profession.
I have found two academic textbooks on police or policing and a dictionary of law enforcement that describe SWAT police [54] [55] [56], and another academic book specifically about SWAT police [57], all describing SWAT police and policing in quite different terms. These books were all published more recently than the children's book. There's a lot of resistance to using different sources or language however, and my edits trying to remove the children's book have been repeatedly reverted. Advice would be appreciated. - Darouet ( talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:SWAT we've been having a discussion about trying to provide reliable sources for the SWAT article, which is mostly unsourced at present, except for some part of the "history" section and for content describing SWAT armaments.
One question which has been raised by Mark Marathon is whether this Wall Street Journal "Saturday morning essay" might be more of an opinion piece or editorial than news. The essay is written by Radley Balko, author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop." Mark's concern is important, as it's quite plausible the "Saturday morning essay" is editorial: I'm not familiar enough with the WSJ to know how to approach this issue.
More concretely, would the article be a reliable source for the raid described in Ogden, Utah? What about for describing raids in Georgia, Virginia or Connecticut? Also, the article compiles statistics gathered by others: should we rather cite those original sources than this article, or perhaps verify them? - Darouet ( talk) 17:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
There are several theses available at archive.org which are apparently works of bibliography relating to specific topics. Would such sources be considered reasonable and acceptable for the material they include in similar articles of a bibliographic nature here, such as those in Category:Bibliographies? Yes, I know this is a general question, but I think the question is probably a rather straightforward "yes/no" type. John Carter ( talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.Without evidence of that, they shouldn't be used, and with evidence, still only as primary sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Recently, a wall of text has appeared at Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science [58] which is labeled a "Controversy". It contains a few citations (mostly to TX state laws), but in my opinion the gist of the controversy is unsourced. In particular, there don't seem to be any sources offered that actually advance the same complaint being mentioned in the article. Some of the included text may be usable, but I suspect that a lot of the issue is only in the mind of the IPs that added it. As I attended this school and still feel strongly about it, I consider myself to have something of a COI here and don't really want to get into it myself. I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look and make whatever edits you feel are appropriate. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Is Kanzenshuu considered a reliable source, since it is a fansite for the Dragon Ball series? There seems to be some sort of disagreement (which I am uninvolved) over at the Dragon Ball page using it as a source for the actual publication dates. The discussion is at Talk:Dragon_Ball#publication. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I checked that site, and as a source, it depends on the material in question. It may be a reliable source for some aspects, and not reliable for others. Blanket statements about a source like this are not useful; editorial judgement and discretion still applies. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This personal website is run by an individual and is advertising supported. It contains photographs and text that the site claims are reprints of government documents, but there is no supporting information such as a scan or photostat for this particular source of the original document text, just the transcribed text. There are scans of images and I assume that since its a government publication that its in the public domain and thus not a copyright violation.
This site itself carries a disclaimer, "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website."
Granted, other areas of the site do have scans or images of the original documents such as these, but not the series of source articles referenced above.
I am not disputing the information, assuming it was taken from the original government document, but without any means to verify what is posted, how can all portions of this site be considerable reliable? According to one User, this website is cited and referenced by numerous authors in books and magazines and for the sections backed by scans of the original material I can see how that is the case, but that does not seem to remove the verifiability issue for posted sources that do not. Since there are government documents being referenced, shouldn't there be a better source available? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view. The lonesentry.com site is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents. A simple Google search reveals that it is widely used as source material in many articles, books and other publications (with approximately 80,000 hits). I then composed a list of the first 25 books that popped-up using lonesentry.com material as sources. Scalhotrod rejected the list, denounced the writers stating that "Authors want to make money too" and demanded that I produce additional evidence. I now believe that Scalhotrod is toying with me and that no evidence will satisfy him.
Also, it should be noted that many "personal websites" are routinely used as references on wiki. One http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html is a website run by one man. This website also uses..."Site mission satement (yes, statement is misspelled) and legal disclaimer 1. I do not sell or buy any weapons. This site is for education only! 2. In no case I shall be liable for any damage or harm, caused by use or misuse of any information, facts and opinions, placed on this site. 3. All information is gathered from the open sources" He offers no supporting documents whatsoever for his facts and opinions. Whereas, lonesentry.com simply proves digital copies of government documents. User:Scalhotrod, has provide no evidence that lonesentry is manipulating the data other than to claim that its own legal disclaimer somehow invalidates the information provided on the website. Below is a copy of the relevant conversation on the StG 44 talk page.-- RAF910 ( talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Material copy-pasted from talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gewehr means "rifle" ?Oh hoh hoh, so "Maschinengewehr" is machine... rifle ??? Михаил Александрович Шолохов ( talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
How about sturm?But apparently "sturm" can only mean "assault" in this article ( another look in the dictionary) or maybe there's another explanation. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Sturm = storm...as in "have fun storming the castle". In this context, the most commonly used translated synonym is "assault". Therefore, the most common english language translation for "sturmgewehr" is "assault rifle". See...the fifth definition in the verb section of the above source ( another look in the dictionary). This is also well referenced within the article. As Sus scrofa said above..."Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text."-- RAF910 ( talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Reliability of LoneSentry websiteScalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html Machine Carbine Promoted," Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945. This is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents, it is widely used on wiki and in books and other publication (a simple google search will prove this). I believe that he cannot accept the fact that the German word "sturmgewehr" is commonly translated into English as as "assault rifle" and believes that it should be translated as "storm gun" instead. Also, he seems upset that the source states that Adolph Hitler coined the term (see assault rifle page). And, since the reference in question is the first time that the term "assault rifle" is used, he is attempting to discredit it.-- RAF910 ( talk) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that you forgot to write the first and last sentence of Lonesentry.com disclaimer...so for my fellow users it states "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website." U.S. War Department publications are by definition reliable sources. The website simply puts a standard disclaimer at the top of each article. Also, Lonesentry.com is clearly an established and reputable source of information. A simple Google search reveils that numerous books use Lonesentry.com resources as references (see sample list below...I'm afraid there are too many to list them all).
The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide 4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold World War II By Walter A. Haze Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman -- RAF910 ( talk) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this...the hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty resources as references are all a bunch of hack-writers and you expect me to prove their research. While you...who now by your own admission could not correctly translate the German word "sturmgewehr" to the English term "assault rifle" (despite 70 years and countless books and articles on the subject), alone possesses the knowledge to invalidate the research of hundreds if not thousands of writers. I don't think so...and, I will no longer entertain you.-- RAF910 ( talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
|
RAF910, it is neither necessary nor helpful to copy-paste large quantities of text from the talk page - particularly when much of it doesn't even seem to refer to the matter in question. The only question we are addressing here is whether the LoneSentry site is an appropriate source for the material cited. And concerning that question, I'd have to agree with Scalhotrod that the website appears to be a personal one - and accordingly per WP:RS not likely to be acceptable without strong evidence that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I can see no particular reason to assume that it isn't accurate, but it would clearly be better to find a source that isn't in doubt. LoneSentry cites the original U.S. government document, and the obvious solution here is to locate that, and cite it instead. If that can't be done, we may have to discuss the suitability of LoneSentry as a source further - in a manner that doesn't involve accusing Scalhotrod of being involved in 'a crusade'. Disputes about the validity of sources are common on Wikipedia (as I'm sure Scalhotrod would agree, we've had a few ourselves) and they are best settled by presenting the evidence, rather than making negative comments about an opponent. You have listed a number of books which cite LoneSentry - could you provide further details of specific cases where it is being cited, so we can get a better idea of its "reputation"? Given the circumstances (what appears to be a personal website), the burden rest with you to convince us that the source is valid. We are after all writing for our readers, rather than ourselves, and accordingly we have to err on the side of caution when in doubt. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have already provided a list with 25 books that use lonesentry as source, how many more do I need to provide? With ~80,000 hits on a Google search, I could probably provide a 100 more in the next day or two. How much time do I have?-- RAF910 ( talk) 02:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab
The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide
The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte
The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid
Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab
German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab
Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke
Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn
Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide
West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco
Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke
The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide
4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty
A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs
The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix
The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte
Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold
World War II By Walter A. Haze
Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson
Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons
Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman
One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin
Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison
Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry
Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore
Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman
For the record this is extremely time consuming. I will continue to add books when time allows.-- RAF910 ( talk) 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(e/c)
The discussion above seems to slightly miss the mark in several ways.
The source whose reliability is in question should be the 1945 article and not the reliability of republisher, LoneSentry. There appears to be a concession that if an image of the article were published, then it would be accepted as a true copy of the 1945 source. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the republisher would have changed content. I could expect some small transcription errors, but I would not expect gross content changes.
To put it another way, if the citation just identified the 1945 article (and did not link to LoneSentry.com), then would there be any debate about the reliability of the source?
The disclaimer about accuracy on the webpage seems to be the republisher denying responsibility for the original content. That does not impugn or praise the content of the 1945 document. The statement does further the belief that the republisher is providing an accurate copy: "No attempt has been made to update or correct the text."
Reading the document at LoneSentry (and assuming it is a copy of 1945 document), it appears to be a primary source with a significant bias against the weapon: "cheap stampings"; "dents easily and therefore is subject to jamming"; "Germany's unfavorable military situation"; comparing weight to the M1 carbine (how about Thompson's weight); "may have been intended to be an expendable weapon and to be thrown aside in combat" (really? what does the soldier have left to shoot?). I might use the 1945 article for some statements, but I would not give its opinions about the weapon much weight. They do not seem to be founded in any significant tests or research.
Also troubling is that in the StG 44 article, Musgrave (an apparent secondary source about German weapons) overrules the primary source opinion as not "an accurate view of the weapons characteristics". To me, that brings in a WP:UNDUE weight concern. At this point, my inclination is secondary sources are needed to state the weapon is inferior; otherwise Musgrave's assessment should prevail and primary sources should not be mentioned. I looked in Hatcher, and he says nothing about the family's reliability; if it were a bad weapon system, I'd expect some remark.
Glrx ( talk) 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The LoneSentry.com transcription of the War Departments Tactical and Technical Trends should be accepted as a reliable copy of that government publication unless and until some other editor has accessed a printed or microfiche copy of that same publication and reported some error in the transcription of the document. It is unreasonable for an editor to object material that has been converted into an electronic format for the Internet. The verifiable rule means that other editors have the opportunity to verify. The burden for the editor objecting to this material is that he or she should find a copy of "Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945," and if he or she finds that the material quoted in the post is inaccurate, then and only then should that source be disputed. - GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document. It seems that User talk:Binksternet comments and evidence (be it unintentional) suggest that it is indeed a TRUE transcription of the original document. Also, User:Glrx comments above suggest that he also believes it to be a TRUE transcription of the original document.-- RAF910 ( talk) 05:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document...As for the idea that Joseph Balkoski's book From Brittany to the Reich is indisputable and trumps all other sources of information is nonsense and irrelevant to this discussion.-- RAF910 ( talk) 05:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Assuming, the transcription is true...It accurately reflects the U.S. military opinion of the StG44 in 1945. It is also the first time the term "assault rifle" is used in an English source. As such it is an important historical document. Yes, over the next 20 years the U.S. military's opinion of the StG44 changed and by 1970 the "M16 Rifle Case Study. Prepared for the President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel. March 16, 1970. By Richard R. Hallock, Colonel U.S. Army (Retired) http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/02.pdf" opinion was that "The principle of this weapon -- the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat -- was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder." However, going back to the subject at hand. If this source is rejected as unreliable, then it can no longer be used on Wikipedia for any reason. The source may be deleted wherever it's used and anyone attempting to add the source in the future will be considered a vandal. This action will give some editors the ability to deny historical facts and impose their point of view on other editors. Which is in fact the reason, that we are discussing this issue in the first place.
We are not on this noticeboard to discuss the content on the StG44 page. We are here (at your request) to declare the lonesentry TaTT information an unreliable source and to ban it. If you have changed your mind and want to withdraw your challenge, then do so.-- RAF910 ( talk) 06:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Source: [68] Article: 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt Dubious Content:
"Around 25,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt that year (1956)"
The article states that the entirety of the Jews who left Egypt in 1956 were expelled. No source was provided. Two other sources (Mainstream British newspaper and an Israeli college academic) agree that a minority of the Jews in Egypt - estimated at 500 - were expelled in 1956. The Algemeiner has therefore introduced an extreme POV, grossly distorting the best historical indications.
Previously I had come across other publications by The Algemeiner which I found to be dubious at best. Some examples are: º Calling Norman Finkelstein a "Holocaust defamer" (Finkelstein is the son of a holocaust victim) - http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/02/14/harvard-needs-some-schooling-on-the-middle-east/ º "During the Mandate, “Palestinian” referred to the Jews, while the Arabs were simply Arabs." - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/28/failure-of-the-two-state-solution-a-reply-to-ian-lustick/. In reality (see "Survey for Palestine" Jews are referred to as such; Arabised Palestinians are referred to as Arabs; and citizens of Palestine are referred to as Palestinians. º "(Falk) blames America and Israel for the Boston terrorist attacks" - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/03/princeton-university-must-fire-professor-richard-falk/. Nowhere in his article does Falk use the work 'blame'. He mentions Israel exactly 5 times, and never in the context of responsibility for the Boston bombings.
Is this patern one of a disturbing propensity by The Algemeiner to massage the historical facts? Erictheenquirer ( talk) 10:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "Greenpeace responded with apologies, claiming that demonstrators took care to avoid damage, but this is contradicted by video and photographs showing the activists wearing conventional shoes (not special protective shoes) while walking on the site" is sourced to [69]. Dougweller ( talk) 11:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I note that kirkusreviews.com is currently cited by around 290 of our articles, and have to question the wisdom of using this source - they appear to publish reviews in return for a substantial payment from the author/publisher. [70] Am I right in assuming that (a) such payment means that they are not an independant source, and their reviews cannot be cited as evidence of notability, and (b) such payment is sufficient reason not to consider them worth citing at all? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Do contemporary Buddhist teachers (with no western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism) count as primary or secondary sources? VictoriaGrayson Talk 02:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi All, I made two posts above asking about the viability of WSJ and children's books as sources, and haven't gotten any comments yet. Just a request for someone to look before these go to archives! - Darouet ( talk) 18:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been proposed on electronic cigarette that the following text be added:
"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013. [1]"
based on the following source:
Convenience link to PDF here; relevant material in first paragraph of page 1982. It is published in the medical journal ( Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world). A question of reliability of this as a source has been raised that since this is a medical source and the text being added is not strictly medical in nature. Comments on the reliability of this source for this text is appreciated! Yobol ( talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills-- I do not get that the proposed content based on the source is saying this, at all.
Zad
68
03:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I must say I'm surprised that it is being said that its acceptable to notify WP:MED of this discussion without notifying other interested parties at the article talk page. Anyway that is a separate issue, with regards to the source's reliability, surely a marketing strategy claim by a public health official is not as reliable as a medical claim? I understand that public health officials regularly voice their opinions on such issues but this fact surely doesn't make them experts on a non-medical topic? Lots of people regularly voice opinions on many things without being experts. Also does the disclosure that one of the source's authors "is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert witness in litigation against tobacco companies" affect the reliability in relation to marketing strategy claims about e-cigarettes? Levelledout ( talk) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Uninvolved editors here believe the source is reliable for the claim. There was a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 19#Proposed compromise. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I was going to this mention more than a week ago, but hoped things would fizzle out. In this case though, it looks like it would have been better if all the involved editors would hold off on commenting so much at RSN. Obviously folks are entitled to post here regardless of involvement, but it's very difficult to see what uninvolved editors actually gauged of things. It looks like the contentiousness at the article and enthusiasm of the editors has spilled over here. So far, posts by uninvolved editors (as much as I can tell at first glance) include: WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Doc James, TFD, Alexbrn, and myself. All state to some degree or another that the source is reliable for the proposed content or that there are other sources that do the same as it is from experts in a journal commenting on a very closely related field. Best to use that to inform your work over at the article talk page. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 06:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see mention of a B-47 that crashed on Goose Bay Labrador around Feb 11 1959 The aircraft was from Witman AFB, enroute home from
Europe, landed for fuel, and failed to lift of in time catching an outrigger wheel in a snow bank, flipping the aircraft killing all aboard
How do I know this? I was in the Air Police stationed there, and had to work the site. Leo McCauley McNabb, IL.
I would like to reference data from this website in an article. My checks on this noticeboard reveal negative comments dated from 2007, so I need to revive the opinions. From their website, JfJfP claims the following support
At the end of 2010, our over 1,600 signatories included six rabbis; 110 professors (including five Fellows of the Royal Society and two fellows of the British Academy); 150 medical and academic doctors; several OBEs, CBEs and MBEs, six knights, one Member of Parliament and one member of the House of Lords. The list includes Prof Zygmunt Bauman, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Rex Bloomstein, Jenny Diski, Moris Farhi MBE, Bella Freud, Stephen Fry, Roger Graef OBE, Dr Julian Huppert MP, Prof Mary Kaldor, Nicolas Kent, Baroness Beeban Kidron, Baroness Oona King, Prof Francesca Klug OBE, Peter Kosminsky, Mike Leigh, Miriam Margolyes OBE, Mike Marqusee, Dr Jonathan Miller, Rabbi Jeffrey Newman, Sophie Okonedo OBE, Prof Susie Orbach, Prof Jacqueline Rose FBA, Mike Rosen, Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, Alexei Sayle, Prof Lynne Segal, Will Self, Sir Antony Sher, Prof Avi Shlaim FBA, Gillian Slovo, Sir Tom Stoppard, Dame Janet Suzman and Zoë Wanamaker CBE
I find it difficult to believe that a) these illustrious people would not have been alerted if the claims are fraudulent, and b) that they can all and cumulatively give support to an organisation that publishes unreliable data - IN GENERAL - so I am going to conclude that the website is WP:RS in general. I fully appreciate that on individual specific issues it may contain errors, as does the NYT. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 09:38, 15 December 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 178 | Archive 179 | Archive 180 | Archive 181 | Archive 182 | → | Archive 185 |
Something that occurs to me after reading about all this GamerGate stuff -- is it appropriate to consider pieces of media reliable sources for controversies that they themselves are the subject of? Extending that, what about pieces of media owned by the same company (for example if a Gawker property is subject of a controversy are other Gawker properties RS)?
It seems...inappropriate to consider something an RS for a topic when it has an express business interest in taking a particular bias in it's coverage, which is always going to be the case when it's the subject of a controversy (in the case of GamerGate, Kotaku [for example] needs it to not be about ethics in journalism and alleged misbehavior of some of it's writers as much as possible because it makes them look terrible, and so have an express interest in not representing it as being about those things, as potentially does Gawker as a whole). Schadrach ( talk) 12:34, 4 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank TRPoD for pointing me here. Anyways, I'm probably using this for the fivethousanth time, but "Employee X of Gawker media did not do y. [1] Source: Gawker Media". Gawker Media and its network of news/blog sites, depending on which day of the week it is, should not, under any circumstance, be considered reliable, being described as a tabloid. Additionally, the only instance where Gawker should be cited, is for the section on Operation Baby Seal (in which gamers and others are emailing Google and Amazon themselves to report proven violations of their ad systems). If anything, Gawker media should be blacklisted as a reliable source on Wikipedia, if anything, given their low, low standards of "reporting", bloglike nature, and otherwise low quality "news". Clickbait. It's nothing but clickbait. -- DSA510 Pls No H8 21:59, 13 November 2014 (UTC)
I wish to know whether this is a reliable source in the context of establishing Sarbajit Roy's notability, the article is facing a RfD. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 10:17, 20 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks NebY after my faux pas with Hindustan Today I wanted to be a little careful and the agency didn't look perfect so I brought it here. Regardless of the outcome of the said discussion, I feel the subject is notable enough, for a stand alone article, and I will be more careful if/when I appeal the deletion. Thanks one more time. Yogesh Khandke ( talk) 10:09, 22 November 2014 (UTC)
Is this reliable to use in the Barelvi article? It seems to be the site of the movement : http://www.alahazrat.net/islam/waseela.php" (it is to be used to add that they have a practice called " Waseela")
& is this a reliable source: https://www.academia.edu/7643961/Anti-Americanism_in_Indonesia_and_Pakistan" (to be used to add a link to Nahdlatul Ulama in the see also section of the Barelvi article with the headline "similar traditional movement". Lagoonaville ( talk) 05:28, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
We are well aware of your thoughts on this matter. I would like to hear feedback from the users on this noticeboard. Lagoonaville ( talk) 04:36, 23 November 2014 (UTC)
If the information is accurate and backed by other sources why wouldnt it be? This website is dedicated to barelvi movement. Lagoonaville ( talk) 01:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
'"Barelvi Islam is closely tied to the devotion to pirs and belief in their powers of intercession (wasilah)"'. State and ideology in the Middle East and Pakistan. Page 84 [9]
"Darul Uloom (Pretoria) was the first fully-fledged Barelwi madrasah. It was established in 1989, at a time when the Deobandi-Barelwi confclit in South Africa was at its peaks. During the 1980s, Deobandi attacks had heightened against popular Sufi practices such as the visitation to shrines of Sufi saints, the celebration of Muhammad’s birth (mawlid), and against beliefs in the intercession of saints (tawassul)"' Muslim Schools and E'ducation in Europe and South Africa).page 76 [10]
"According to Barelwi scholar, Muhammad is no mere mortal. He possesses ‘ilm al-ghayb (knowledge of the unknown) and is the primary focus for tawassul (intercession) with God". Encyclopaedia of Islam.page 88 [11]
'"Barelvis believe in the wasilah (higher standing or great religious status) of dead saints and their brakkah (spiritual power, blessings, holiness), to be found in their shrines". Islamic Fundamentalism in Pakistan, Egypt and Iran. page 399 [12]
"The only reformist school which has vindicated the full Sufi heritage, is that of the Barelwis who have been joined by the Naqshbandis; their practice of Sufism may be compared to that of the Indonesian Nathdlatul Ulama.” Varieties of Religious Authority: Changes and Challenges in 20th Century Indonesian Islam. Page 8 [13] Lagoonaville ( talk) 00:28, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
I opened up an RfC for the U.S. same-sex marriage map due to the complicated situation of Kansas. You are welcome to join in on the conversation; reliable sources are also welcome! RfC: How should we color Kansas? Prcc27 ( talk) 06:34, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
All the specs in that site of the motorcycle are been used to expand and as a source to the /info/en/?search=Kawasaki_GPZ305 wikipedia article
Thanks Orendona ( talk) 19:57, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
These sites, used as a reliable source in the Gamergate_controversy, claim or insinuate, in these articles
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/oct/23/felicia-days-public-details-online-gamergate The Guardian Quote: The publication of Day’s details is being seen as further strengthening the criticism that Gamergate’s partcipants are pursuing an anti-woman agenda, None of you fucking #gamergate tools tried to dox me, even after I tore you a new one. I’m not even a tough target, he tweeted. Instead, you go after a woman who wrote why your movement concerns her.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/10/24/gamergate-targets-felicia-day-after-she-expresses-fear-of-being-targeted/ Washington Post Quote: Day was worried that if she spoke up about Gamergate, she would be viciously harassed by the same torch-bearing misogynists who have targeted feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian and developers Brianna Wu and Zoe Quinn. Well, she was right.
My emphasis. The 'vicious harassment' attributed is based on the same as the Times and WP: a post who claims no affiliation.
http://time.com/3535619/felicia-day-writes-about-gamergate-gets-information-hacked/ Times Quote: Supernatural actress and avid gamer Felicia Day took to her Tumblr to talk about #GamerGate on Thursday and, perhaps unsurprisingly, was immediately harassed. Though #GamerGaters claim that they are
that the movement GamerGate is reponsible for harassing and doxxing her, something that the Gamergate article in Wikipedia reflects. However, they are based on a commentary (which one of the articles link: http://imgur.com/UAcmAg1) that do not claim affiliation to any movements, nor makes reference to a movement. At the very best this is rumor mongering and at worst it's straight dishonest, and spreading lies isn't the characteristic of reliable sources. -- Zakkarum ( talk) 20:44, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi, folks.
I deleted some long-unsourced material from BDSM page. The material had been tagged for 2 months or more, but no RS's came forth. (There remains still more unsourced and tagged material.) User:RobinHood70 wants to restore the deleted material, using as sources amateur websites maintained by BDSM enthusiasts, and acknowledging that "I take it as a given that some sources will be less than ideal for the simple reason that BDSM is not often covered in mainstream non-fiction literature." [15]
The sites User:RobinHood70 proposes as sources are:
Although I am sympathetic to the problem, my own view is that WP is not a fan cite and that if the material does not receive coverage by RS's, then the material does not belong in an encyclopedia. That is, we don't lower are standards to justify material; we have a standard and include the material that meets it.
The exact statements being restored are:
(Other material being restored properly sourced there is no issue with.)
Thanks for any input.
— James Cantor (
talk) 00:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
A small side note that's not really about RS: Without prejudice to anyone, I'd caution against taking material out solely because a sentence is without a citation. We're only supposed to remove material if it's unsourced as well as somehow likely to be challenged. If the sentences look like they could be considered fairly accurate and easily verifiable from sourced material on a related Wikipedia page, then it can be left in while discussed (since this is not a BLP). The next sentence is a good example that doesn't necessarily require an additional inline citation: The term
sadomasochism is derived from the words sadism and masochism (see
Etymology).
__ E L A Q U E A T E 03:47, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
At the article Ludovico Arroyo Bañas, there are several usages of a source from Angelfire, which I believe falls under WP:SPS. The source is as follows: http://www.angelfire.com/pq/telecommunications/ . It appears to have a bibliography, but no in-line citations. Please provide opinions.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 07:10, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
Just want to confirm that opinions on the discussions.apple.com website would not constitute a reliable source. I know this is a simple one, and is realistically cut and dry WP:USERGENERATED but an IP user insists it's reliable. The subject item is https://discussions.apple.com/docs/DOC-3036 and is related to MacKeeper.-- Labattblueboy ( talk) 04:05, 27 November 2014 (UTC)
EllenCT ( talk) 03:06, 25 November 2014 (UTC)
Both sources are review articles in journals. Nothing to really address here in terms of reliability sources, although it does look like caution is needed in separating fact summarized in the reviews from the opinions and conclusions made by the authors. As Yobol mentioned, seems like the current statements picked are a matter of weight and not really the purpose of this board. Especially since we're dealing with statements that all appear to be pro-e-cig (or really whenever you are saying something is a positive or negative) that's an obvious question for weight. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 00:37, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I have been repeatedly trying to update the wiki Matt Taylor (scientist) to mention the existence of an IndieGogo campaign relating to him. As evidence that this campaign exists, I have cited it as a reference. The edit keeps being deleted on the pretext that IndieGogo is not a "reliable source", and the evidence should come at second hand from, say, a newspaper website. This is obviously absurd. What more reliable source could there be for the existence of an IndieGogo fundraising campaign than the thing itself? How can providing the primary source for an assertion be seen as unreliable? Specifically I am trying to quote the rationale stated by the campaign organiser for starting the campaign. The evidence for this is on the campaign page, and nowhere else. If the actual, primary evidence for it is regarded as "unreliable", then that is tantamount to saying that this information can never be placed on wikipedia. But why shouldn't it be?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
That's a deeply questionable stance to take for all sorts of reasons - pehaps primarily the assumption that something only matters once the mainstream media have noticed it and decided to talk about it - although in this particular case an independent secondary source (Yahoo news) has noticed it and mentioned it in a report. My point, though, was about the absurdity of the idea that the existence of something (in this case a crowdfund campaign) cannot be reliably attested by primary reference to that thing, which was the pretext for removing my edit. The discussion now seems to have moved on from there, but I still think it should be noted in all future such cases that primary sources are allowed on wikipedia: "A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge" - and that there is a common sense clause in the policy. It must therefore be regarded as in compliance with policy on sources to prove an assertion that an IndieGogo campaign exists by providing a link to that campaign in the references as a primary source.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
Except I wasn't talking about any of those irrelevant things you just dragged in, I was arguing specifically that where a claim that an IndieGogo campaign exists is made, providing the link to it as a reference is an entirely reasonable way of verifying the claim, and this really ought to be acknowledged as not being in contravention of any policy on sources. The common sense policy is for the birds, it seems.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
Aren't you shifting the goalposts again there? I wasn't citing it to demonstrate that it was noteworthy, I was citing it to prove it exists. The noteworthiness is a separate issue.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
No, you are not listening to me. I agree that not everything is necessarily worthy of mention in this encyclopedia. Wikipedia comes to decisions on whether things are worthy of writing about in a vague, mutual way. I'm not seeking to change that, but it is separate from how assertions are validated in articles. Assuming that the existence of this campaign were adjudged noteworthy, how else could or should it and its aims be attested other than by reference to it? I am pointing out a specific instance of where your policies are not working sufficiently well, for someone who is not trying to "spam the site" (unless you are using a very creative and individual definition of "spam"). In discussion with someone else I encountered the view that "it's... unreliable because it's a primary source". What that says about the way wikipedia sources information is really quite worrying. It is obviously in everyone's interests that common sense should be applied in such cases. I'm surprised that this point has encountered such bloody-minded resistance. And I wish you would stop assuming bad faith about me.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.66.228 ( talk • contribs)
This exchange appears to be fruitless since you're not prepared to engage in an open spirit, and also since the discussion on the relevant article has (I hope) moved on to the more material questions of noteworthiness and the neutrality of my edit (which I have tried to address with a suggested new wording; and I am happy to acknowledge that I support the campaign, but there is no valid reason why that should preclude me from writing about it, and it has no bearing whatsoever on its noteworthiness). But I find your attitude to this perplexing and not at all reassuring.
http://www.kicker.de/news/fussball/bundesliga/startseite/616467/artikel_bayern-mitglieder-feiern-abwesenden-hoeness.html was used to support the statement that FC Bayern Munich has "over 251,000 members" and therefore is considered "the biggest club in the world". First some background. Not all football clubs have memberships. So some clubs may have more supporters, or rank higher on Forbes' list of most successful sports franchises. This is only about members. Second, one fan of a club that doesn't keep accurate records, Portuguese club Benfica, has taken offence to the change. He claims that UEFA doesn't support that statement, but doesn't offer any proof from the organization. He claims that Guiness World Records doesn't support it, but again, no support. I believe that even if they offered contradicting claims, it doesn't nullify the new RS and their claims may need to be updated. Also, even if they contradict, it's not incorrect to use the source unless it's not reliable. We add additional statements with the countering claims. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 01:19, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
I am currently in a dispute with another editor (who seems to have walked away from the discussion) over whether
the quote from Rachel Feltman in the
"Shirt controversy" section of the Matt Taylor article is from a newsblog at The Washington Post or from The Washington Post itself. I maintain that the text "Rachel Feltman runs The Post's Speaking of Science blog."
at the end of the
Washington Post article clearly identifies that Speaking of Science is a newsblog and not the Washington Post itself. The other editor responded
here that the format of the URL indicates that it is not a blog, but part of The Washington Post's news reporting.
It is obvious that we have a disagreement and I am bringing the issue here to get someone else to look at it, since no one else has commented in the discussion. The discussion is at the article talk page 70.133.154.32 ( talk) 02:08, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
"Speaking of Science is not a WP:NEWSBLOG — it is specifically a part of The Washington Post's regular news coverage and is reported and edited as such"which is what brought me here to ask if it is a newsblog. How we use opinion pieces is also important. None of the other sources are being used to support a one-word quote like the one in
which she described as "sexist"just prior to the long quote from Feltman's piece. 70.133.154.32 ( talk) 05:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thanks. The discussion here pointed the way to an "olive branch" solution that seems to have worked. 70.133.154.32 ( talk) 02:52, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
We're currently discussing Yet Another Cleaner and its pending deletion and the only so-called reliable source we have mentioning this (IMO Rogue) software is an "Editor's Review" by CNET Staff. [21] Unfortunately, I can't agree that this would constitute a reliable source because of the fact that the article contains affiliate links, meaning that for every purchase this article promotes, CNET makes a commission.
Examples: "Get Winzip Standard" [22], "MS Office for $139.99" [23], "Upgrade to YAC Anti-Malware Premium for only $20.00" [24]
These are all clearly affiliate links which earn CNET financial reward for virtually any software it praises. I find it hard to believe that these would be considered good things to cite, let alone being the deciding factor on why obscure software should have its own article on WP. Opinions? - JakobusVP ( talk) 17:03, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Hello, If I am correctly understanding, this noticeboard serves to check the authenticity of a particular source used in an Wikipedia article. The source in question is: Brown KW, McGoldrick T, Buchanan R (1997). "Body dysmorphic disorder: Seven cases treated with eye movement desensitization and reprocessing". Behavioural and Cognitive Psychotherapy 25 (02): 203–207. The reference is being used in its entirety simply to demonstrate one of a number of psychological conditions other than Post-traumatic Stress Disorder under investigation with EMDR therapy. Thank You Saturn Explorer ( talk) 05:00, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Thank you BullRangifer. Here is the usage of the aforementioned reference. As you can see, reference #32 was tagged: "Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder,[28] anxiety disorders,[29][verification needed] somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain,[30][31] body dysmorphic disorder,[32][verification needed] depression[33] and psychosis.[34]Although controlled research has concentrated on the application of EMDR to PTSD, a number of studies have investigated EMDR therapy’s efficacy with other disorders, such as borderline personality disorder,[28] anxiety disorders,[29][verification needed] somatic disorders such as phantom limb pain,[30][31] body dysmorphic disorder,[32][verification needed] depression[33] and psychosis."[34] Saturn Explorer ( talk) 13:21, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
Actually, I just noticed that reference #29 has very recently been tagged as well: Gauvreau P, Bouchard S (2008). "Preliminary evidence for the efficacy of EMDR in treating generalized anxiety disorder". Journal of EMDR Practice and Research 2 (1): 26–40. doi:10.1891/1933-3196.2.1.26. Thanks you, again. Saturn Explorer ( talk) 13:35, 30 November 2014 (UTC)
OK, makes sense. Thank you BullRangifer. Saturn Explorer ( talk) 04:18, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
I should say this makes sense from the perspective of matured scientific publishing and from a perspective that seeks to both inform and protect the public from misunderstanding or even inadvertently misleadking implications. This is the venerable perspective of Wikipedia and the whole reason for your comments. However, I would refrain from blanket labeling JEMDR as "junk science." JEMDR has many serious contributors and it is peer reviewed. True, it does not react the level of excellence of a JAMA or Nature, etc., but it's intent extends beyond self-promotion. I rather think of JEMDR as a laboratory for a variety of contributors and contributions exploring a serious subject of both science and healing art, shich has already shown very significant effectiveness, at a relativel early phase of that subject. Saturn Explorer ( talk) 20:06, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
These sources [25] [26] are actually reliable for claiming Pakistan's victory during the Battle of Chawinda?
Until the introduction of these sources, the result parameter was referred as "Stalemate" due to the UN mandated ceasefire. [27], [28], [29] But I really doubt if other two [30] [31] are reliable enough for claiming the results, since they are outdated and they cannot overlap the sources that are dated and have enough expertise in the field. OccultZone ( Talk • Contributions • Log) 16:51, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Okay, for one last time, I'll try to be clearer assuming that you really have no clue of the way it is referenced. The source in question is ""Biggest Tank Battle since World War II: Pakistani Victory". The Australian (364). 14 September 1965. p. 1.". It is a complete source (ideally it should have had no link / url to it but I added one from a talkpage discussion as a courtesy so that people may read if they do not have that 50 years old newspaper in their library). The nativepakistan link (that you copied from this mentioned source), the second one in your above comment, has a scanned copy of the same and has nothing to do with its own credibility because it is not the source rather just a copy of it for verification. Is that easy enough to get? -- lTopGunl ( talk) 14:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
Another editor has accused these sources of being unreliable in the context of the New World article. Are they?
Thanks! -- Whattheheyhey ( talk) 06:45, 1 December 2014 (UTC)
Some time ago one Ellen Pugh was added to Madoc. At the time I wrote "In a rather odd footnote, an editor writes " Ellen Pugh career: Western Reserve University (now Case Western Reserve University), Cleveland, OH, cataloger, 1943-45; Northwestern University, Evanston, IL, cataloger, 1945-47; Cincinnati Public Library, Cincinnati, OH, branch librarian, 1955-58; University of Nebraska, Lincoln, order librarian, 1958-63; University of Oregon, Eugene, cataloger, 1963-65; University of Rochester, Rochester, NY, cataloger, 1965-68; Washington State University, Pullman, serials librarian, 1969-" - she was also described as a Welsh historian, although she obviously isn't. She was a librarian with evidently no training in history. Emory & Henry College emeritus professor of history Eugene L. Rasor said of her that she "speculated about Prince Madoc but not convincingly". I can't see any way that she can be a reliable source for anything historical. Dougweller (talk) 11:59 am, 15 April 2013, Monday (1 year, 7 months, 18 days ago) (UTC+1)"
That's great, but it's still pretty clear that Pugh doesn't meet our sourcing policy. Also, being from Wales does not make one a reliable source on Welsh medieval literature. And it's not just Pugh, it's also Zella Armstrong who you added to a related article you created, Cronica Walliae. She's not a specialist in the area and she published the book you use. I also see at Talk:Cronica Walliae that you have a pending DYK, nominated by another editor, at Template:Did you know nominations/Cronica Walliae. It says "that according to Humphrey Llwyd's 1559 history manuscript Cronica Walliae Prince Madoc had already made two trips to America from Wales in the year 1170, long before Columbus?". I've edited the actual article to remove the 'long before Columbus' and the suggestion that Prince Madoc was real. As it stands the DYK is pushing a fringe position because it is written in an NPOV fashion. Dougweller ( talk) 16:13, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
This ejournal resembles the Journal of Experimental Psychology in title. It claims PsycInfo listed, but does not appear there, nor in PubMed. Is it credible as a MEDRS? LeadSongDog come howl! 13:15, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed User:McGeddon recently removed all references to the website http://devicespecifications.com in at least the MediaTek article, because this user believes the site is not a reliable source because of the disclaimer about accuracy it displays. An earlier discussion about this is present in the archives Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_179#.22Not_responsible_for_inaccuracies_or_other_errors.22. In the previous discussion, several people made the point that such disclaimers are common and do not suggest that the information on the website is inaccurate.
While the website seems to be a fairly anonymous, large collection of information about smartphone models and there are likely to be a few errors on the website, I believe the site is generally accurate with regard to the information about processor chips used in smartphones, for which it was used as a reference in the MediaTek article amongst others, although I understand that better references such as manufacturer's websites would be preferable.
While one could question whether the exhaustive lists of devices in, for example, the MediaTek article are a good idea, I don't think the references should be deleted because the Wikipedia Reliable Sources guideline does not apply in this case. Calamites ( talk) 23:07, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/pop-in-eur.asp Is this source legit for academic or professional purposes, and how can I check if it's up to date? ( N0n3up ( talk) 13:35, 2 December 2014 (UTC))
Or what about this?: http://www.paolomalanima.it/default_file/Papers/MEDIEVAL_GROWTH.pdf Even though it was probably from 2010, it might serve as a better or a recent source. Then again in the population section, I don't know how to tell exactly the population numbers. ( N0n3up ( talk) 05:54, 3 December 2014 (UTC))
@ The Four Deuces: Right, but I was looking for a more general info in the population of medieval countries, specially Italy and Flander, whose info in here say that Italy and Flanders the most urbanised regions, and for example, the population of Italy seems similar from the two sources provided [40] here ( N0n3up ( talk) 20:44, 3 December 2014 (UTC))
I couldn't find anything in the archives on TechWhirl, so I wanted to open a discussion here before using it. The site has some basic information about Content management, Technical writing and Technical communication. The site's History page provides information about its founding and ownership, and the articles published there are written by experts in the field, but there doesn't seem to be any information about editorial policies. The information they provide is accurate, but I understand that my assurance of that isn't a valid means of proving a source's reliability; I'm just one editor and that's just my personal opinion. Does anyone see any potential problems with using this as a source? Or will it pass? MezzoMezzo ( talk) 03:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)
Is casaparticularcuba.org a reliable source? User:Songonero wants to use it in the article Casa particular, specifically sourcing it to the content found here (permalink). Our conversation can be found User talk:Apparition11#Casa_Particular. I think that it looks like simple ref spam, but the editor adding it (also the creator of the article) used it to write the article and wants further input on its reliability and appropriateness. Thanks. Apparition11 Complaints/ Mistakes 21:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Just looking for some clarification, as I am not sure. http://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-31/breakaway-buddhists-take-aim-dalai-lama is the article.
Quote is:
Barnett says the Dalai Lama discouraged rituals aimed at Dorje Shugden starting in the 1970s, but some members of the clergy ignored him and carried on with the tradition. So in 1996, he prohibited his followers from engaging in Shugden rituals altogther. What has happened since then, Barnett says, is that Shugden practitioners in the Tibetan exile community have faced persecution. And he says the Dalai Lama’s administration hasn’t dealt with that very well.
This is reporting by the Journalist, but issue has come up whether it is usable in a wikipedia article because the journalist doesn't put it in direct quotes ("Barnett says "The Dalai Lama discouraged.." To use it the article wouldn't mean saying this is a DIRECT quote from Barnett, but that its reported this was said.
The article in question is Dorje Shugden Controversy. Thanks! Prasangika37 ( talk) 19:33, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
Kermit Gosnell ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has the sentence "In April 2013, 71 other Members of Congress joined Congresswoman Marsha Blackburn in a letter condemning the media "blackout" on the Gosnell trial". The sources are [42] which is a pro-life website, and The Hill. [43] I don't see the pro-life website as an RS but it does link to copies of the letters, eg [44]. The letters don't actually use the word blackout, although Blackburn used it in a statement. There was some media coverage but not much until April 15th, according to the article. Her letters were sent on the 17th. Hm, this is one of those reports that as I write it makes me wonder if I'm at the right board, as it looks as though this was more for publicity than anything else, being done 2 days after major coverage started if I've got that right, and might be WP:UNDUE. Still, there's certainly the issue of lifesitenews as an RS. Dougweller ( talk) 16:12, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
1. Source. http://iconicphotos.wordpress.com/2009/07/21/moorman-polaroid/
2. Article. Mary Moorman
3. Content. "Moorman sold her original photograph of the assassination for $175,000 in an eBay live auction in January 2008."
Alec Selwyn-Holmes, the author of the Iconic Photos blog, posted this July 21, 2009. Conversely, Christopher Bonanos, an editor at New York Magazine and author of Instant: The Story of Polaroid, stated on February 2, 2012: "Moorman still lives in Dallas, and reportedly still has her original print, despite a report (on Wikipedia and elsewhere) that she sold it in 2008 for $175,000." [45] Thank you! - Location ( talk) 06:05, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi! I am mediating a case concerning Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 on WP:DRN. This case has an interesting sourcing issue, and I would like some advice. It appears that a lot of media sources in Russia -- and not just the ones officially controlled by the government -- tell a completely different story than sources in the US and EU. How do I determine which, if any, are reliable? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 21:51, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict. Stickee (talk) 02:43, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
The incident we're discussing occurred well into a brutal propaganda war between the west and Russia. Media from all parts of the world was already playing its (sometimes unintended) role in that propaganda war. The plane's crash simply caused a massive escalation in that propaganda war. It's a time when almost all media must be consistently questioned. My recommendation has therefore always been for that article to ignore ALL speculation about the crash from anyone, along with all statements from politicians. Removing such content from the article would remove problems with sources, would do no damage to the genuine informational content of the article, and would make it overall a much better one that Wikipedia could be proud of. Right now it's a propaganda tool itself Of course the Russia haters among the self-appointed owners of the article detest my approach. One can only wonder why. HiLo48 ( talk) 05:30, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Regarding "I find it amusing that Guy Macon came here for an independent view, but all he got were either parties to the DRN case, or people already heavily involved in the Ukrainian conflict." I am fully aware of who is involved in the the conflict and who the regulars here at the RSNB are. While I don't in any way discount or devalue input from the former, I have heard much of it already as I have been crawling through the article talk page archives. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:56, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
More generally, I'd like to point out that you can't ask about the reliability of "Russian media" in general. That's not what this board is for and that's not how we evaluate reliability of sources (by their nationality?). What you can do, is take specific sources and ask about them. Obviously, some Russian media will be reliable, and some Russian media will be unreliable. Just like some American media will be reliable and some American media will not be reliable. So you have to ask about or discuss specific sources not a blanket category such as this one. The question is ill posed. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 15:29, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A blog [52] entry is being inserted as a source in several articles by User:StephMac1981 when the blog itself is written by a Stephen T. McErleane. While I must say I agree with his assertions that the "French fort" was indeed actually an Indian fortification (other Native American villages in Upstate New York were called "castles") there is no reliable source that states this. His blog entry fails our RS standards based on being published in an open blog that is not peer reviewed in any manner. Plus the fact that the blog itself advocates its very use by individuals for the purpose of being the source to link to. It is a blatant end run around our OR requirements by creating a pseudo-RS to "publish" one's own OR and then link to it. Plus, the problems inherent in any possible link between StephMac1981 and the author Stephen T. McErleane. Just because one's personal research is correct, and Stephen's research IS, that doesn't mean Wikipedia can use it as a source. Unfortunately, a preeminent scholar on Albany history Jack McEneny (literally wrote the book on Albany) uses the story of the French fortification. The best we can do is simply ignore the story and omit it entirely, but we can not claim it has been debunked or false. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
− ::( edit conflict) x2 Actually they haven't edited their user page but the person is registered. There's a difference. I have now posted on their talk page about this discussion, so you can find them that way. I forgot to put User: that is my fault. The articles in question include, but not limited to- Fort Nassau (North River) which I have reverted, and Castle Island (New York) which I have not as I am waiting for this discussion. May also include other Albany, New York articles specified in the blog as articles that should be edited, and which the author states he may and that his blog should be used as the link as the reference source. McEneny uses the story in his book, Albany: Capital City on the Hudson. Camelbinky ( talk) 21:20, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Removing the challenged material (fort and no fort) until an independent RS can be found looks like the most appropriate thing to do. If editors decide that the blogger is considered an expert with a history of being published by third-party RS, then it might be okay, but someone would have to make that case (and preferably not the author himself). __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:31, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
A few things: 1) I did not write that the French fort was actually an Indian fortification. I wrote that there is no reliable evidence that the French fort existed and that the likely source of this myth is woefully unreliable for reasons I explained in the blog post. My point that the island was likely named after the Indian fortifications is tangential to my main point. (I did not edit the Wikipedia article to say such a thing.) What I wrote was that Charles Gehring, who has 40 years of experience with such things, surmised that it was. I trust the reader to do with that information what he'd like. 2) Perhaps Wikipedia does have a policy that prohibits using blogs as a citation. The great irony here, of course, is that McEneneny's book is wrong. 3) I can't use my research as a source. Again, if Wikipedia has foolish policies, so be it. The blog post is an elaboration too long to put in the page. It has citations. Citing a statement does not give it validity. (Even if it is some awful 19th-century book from Google Books.) It gives it a basis that can stand or fall based on the reader's evaluation. 4) The myth is in the public memory as evidence by its presence on 3 (or more) Wikipedia pages. So at the least my assertion that the first European fortification was not French could have been changed to something like "The story that the first European fortification was a French castle is of questionable authenticity." Then one can site my blog post. If one dares. Stephmac1981 ( talk) 23:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Which book presses are reputable? Just curious. Stephmac1981 ( talk) 00:10, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I get the policy, and I get why it exists. However, editor discretion should be permitted. But I don't want to get bogged down in that discussion.... I initially thought that my assertion that there was no French fort was removed. Fair enough. But then Camelbinky just reverted the page back to the old version that says that the French had a castle on the island, something that s/he knows to be false. It seems to me that the sensible thing to do would be to remove the reference to the French fort altogether. Stephmac1981 ( talk) 00:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
"For 300 years people of Albany believed it to be true." What's your source for that? Stephmac1981 ( talk) 01:00, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
I thought you might have had a pearl of information hidden in your lecture to me on public memory. I've spent enough time worrying about Wikipedia. Take care. Stephmac1981 ( talk) 01:17, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
At SWAT, the only source used in the lead, and the only source providing a general description of SWAT police, is a children's book called "Police Swat Teams: Life on High Alert," a part of the "Extreme Careers" series [53]. The Rosen Publishing Group explains,
Twenty Attention-Grabbing Career Titles Guaranteed to Get Your Middle Schoolers Thinking About Their Future This compelling new series for the middle school reader is designed to appeal to the thrill seeker in all of us. Each book includes information about a different extreme career, with a focus on safety and training. Readers will learn what it takes to get into these professions and what to expect when embarking on one. These volumes also provide information on the exciting aspects of these extreme careers and highlight the possible dangers and risks involved. Colorful photographs and informative sidebars help to make these books an invaluable resource for those young readers looking for a thrilling and fun-filled profession.
I have found two academic textbooks on police or policing and a dictionary of law enforcement that describe SWAT police [54] [55] [56], and another academic book specifically about SWAT police [57], all describing SWAT police and policing in quite different terms. These books were all published more recently than the children's book. There's a lot of resistance to using different sources or language however, and my edits trying to remove the children's book have been repeatedly reverted. Advice would be appreciated. - Darouet ( talk) 17:41, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
At Talk:SWAT we've been having a discussion about trying to provide reliable sources for the SWAT article, which is mostly unsourced at present, except for some part of the "history" section and for content describing SWAT armaments.
One question which has been raised by Mark Marathon is whether this Wall Street Journal "Saturday morning essay" might be more of an opinion piece or editorial than news. The essay is written by Radley Balko, author of the book "Rise of the Warrior Cop." Mark's concern is important, as it's quite plausible the "Saturday morning essay" is editorial: I'm not familiar enough with the WSJ to know how to approach this issue.
More concretely, would the article be a reliable source for the raid described in Ogden, Utah? What about for describing raids in Georgia, Virginia or Connecticut? Also, the article compiles statistics gathered by others: should we rather cite those original sources than this article, or perhaps verify them? - Darouet ( talk) 17:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
There are several theses available at archive.org which are apparently works of bibliography relating to specific topics. Would such sources be considered reasonable and acceptable for the material they include in similar articles of a bibliographic nature here, such as those in Category:Bibliographies? Yes, I know this is a general question, but I think the question is probably a rather straightforward "yes/no" type. John Carter ( talk) 19:14, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence.Without evidence of that, they shouldn't be used, and with evidence, still only as primary sources. __ E L A Q U E A T E 21:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Recently, a wall of text has appeared at Texas Academy of Mathematics and Science [58] which is labeled a "Controversy". It contains a few citations (mostly to TX state laws), but in my opinion the gist of the controversy is unsourced. In particular, there don't seem to be any sources offered that actually advance the same complaint being mentioned in the article. Some of the included text may be usable, but I suspect that a lot of the issue is only in the mind of the IPs that added it. As I attended this school and still feel strongly about it, I consider myself to have something of a COI here and don't really want to get into it myself. I would appreciate it if someone else would take a look and make whatever edits you feel are appropriate. Dragons flight ( talk) 17:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Is Kanzenshuu considered a reliable source, since it is a fansite for the Dragon Ball series? There seems to be some sort of disagreement (which I am uninvolved) over at the Dragon Ball page using it as a source for the actual publication dates. The discussion is at Talk:Dragon_Ball#publication. Lord Sjones23 ( talk - contributions) 20:46, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
I checked that site, and as a source, it depends on the material in question. It may be a reliable source for some aspects, and not reliable for others. Blanket statements about a source like this are not useful; editorial judgement and discretion still applies. - Cwobeel (talk) 04:51, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
This personal website is run by an individual and is advertising supported. It contains photographs and text that the site claims are reprints of government documents, but there is no supporting information such as a scan or photostat for this particular source of the original document text, just the transcribed text. There are scans of images and I assume that since its a government publication that its in the public domain and thus not a copyright violation.
This site itself carries a disclaimer, "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website."
Granted, other areas of the site do have scans or images of the original documents such as these, but not the series of source articles referenced above.
I am not disputing the information, assuming it was taken from the original government document, but without any means to verify what is posted, how can all portions of this site be considerable reliable? According to one User, this website is cited and referenced by numerous authors in books and magazines and for the sections backed by scans of the original material I can see how that is the case, but that does not seem to remove the verifiability issue for posted sources that do not. Since there are government documents being referenced, shouldn't there be a better source available? -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 19:11, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
User:Scalhotrod is apparently on a crusade to eliminate U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html because it completly refutes his point of view. The lonesentry.com site is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents. A simple Google search reveals that it is widely used as source material in many articles, books and other publications (with approximately 80,000 hits). I then composed a list of the first 25 books that popped-up using lonesentry.com material as sources. Scalhotrod rejected the list, denounced the writers stating that "Authors want to make money too" and demanded that I produce additional evidence. I now believe that Scalhotrod is toying with me and that no evidence will satisfy him.
Also, it should be noted that many "personal websites" are routinely used as references on wiki. One http://world.guns.ru/index-e.html is a website run by one man. This website also uses..."Site mission satement (yes, statement is misspelled) and legal disclaimer 1. I do not sell or buy any weapons. This site is for education only! 2. In no case I shall be liable for any damage or harm, caused by use or misuse of any information, facts and opinions, placed on this site. 3. All information is gathered from the open sources" He offers no supporting documents whatsoever for his facts and opinions. Whereas, lonesentry.com simply proves digital copies of government documents. User:Scalhotrod, has provide no evidence that lonesentry is manipulating the data other than to claim that its own legal disclaimer somehow invalidates the information provided on the website. Below is a copy of the relevant conversation on the StG 44 talk page.-- RAF910 ( talk) 21:59, 9 December 2014 (UTC)
Material copy-pasted from talk page |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Gewehr means "rifle" ?Oh hoh hoh, so "Maschinengewehr" is machine... rifle ??? Михаил Александрович Шолохов ( talk) 07:32, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
How about sturm?But apparently "sturm" can only mean "assault" in this article ( another look in the dictionary) or maybe there's another explanation. -- Scalhotrod (Talk) ☮ღ☺ 18:20, 28 November 2014 (UTC) Sturm = storm...as in "have fun storming the castle". In this context, the most commonly used translated synonym is "assault". Therefore, the most common english language translation for "sturmgewehr" is "assault rifle". See...the fifth definition in the verb section of the above source ( another look in the dictionary). This is also well referenced within the article. As Sus scrofa said above..."Translating is also more than putting the literal meaning of words into the translated text."-- RAF910 ( talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)
Reliability of LoneSentry websiteScalhotrod refuses to accept reference that refutes his point of view http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html Machine Carbine Promoted," Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945. This is a well establish internet resource proving digital copies of government documents, it is widely used on wiki and in books and other publication (a simple google search will prove this). I believe that he cannot accept the fact that the German word "sturmgewehr" is commonly translated into English as as "assault rifle" and believes that it should be translated as "storm gun" instead. Also, he seems upset that the source states that Adolph Hitler coined the term (see assault rifle page). And, since the reference in question is the first time that the term "assault rifle" is used, he is attempting to discredit it.-- RAF910 ( talk) 00:28, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I noticed that you forgot to write the first and last sentence of Lonesentry.com disclaimer...so for my fellow users it states "DISCLAIMER: The following text is taken from the U.S. War Department publication Tactical and Technical Trends. As with all wartime intelligence information, data may be incomplete or inaccurate. No attempt has been made to update or correct the text. Any views or opinions expressed do not necessarily represent those of the website." U.S. War Department publications are by definition reliable sources. The website simply puts a standard disclaimer at the top of each article. Also, Lonesentry.com is clearly an established and reputable source of information. A simple Google search reveils that numerous books use Lonesentry.com resources as references (see sample list below...I'm afraid there are too many to list them all).
The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide 4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold World War II By Walter A. Haze Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman -- RAF910 ( talk) 04:10, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Let me see if I understand this...the hundreds if not thousands of authors that have use Lonesenrty resources as references are all a bunch of hack-writers and you expect me to prove their research. While you...who now by your own admission could not correctly translate the German word "sturmgewehr" to the English term "assault rifle" (despite 70 years and countless books and articles on the subject), alone possesses the knowledge to invalidate the research of hundreds if not thousands of writers. I don't think so...and, I will no longer entertain you.-- RAF910 ( talk) 22:31, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
|
RAF910, it is neither necessary nor helpful to copy-paste large quantities of text from the talk page - particularly when much of it doesn't even seem to refer to the matter in question. The only question we are addressing here is whether the LoneSentry site is an appropriate source for the material cited. And concerning that question, I'd have to agree with Scalhotrod that the website appears to be a personal one - and accordingly per WP:RS not likely to be acceptable without strong evidence that it has "a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy". I can see no particular reason to assume that it isn't accurate, but it would clearly be better to find a source that isn't in doubt. LoneSentry cites the original U.S. government document, and the obvious solution here is to locate that, and cite it instead. If that can't be done, we may have to discuss the suitability of LoneSentry as a source further - in a manner that doesn't involve accusing Scalhotrod of being involved in 'a crusade'. Disputes about the validity of sources are common on Wikipedia (as I'm sure Scalhotrod would agree, we've had a few ourselves) and they are best settled by presenting the evidence, rather than making negative comments about an opponent. You have listed a number of books which cite LoneSentry - could you provide further details of specific cases where it is being cited, so we can get a better idea of its "reputation"? Given the circumstances (what appears to be a personal website), the burden rest with you to convince us that the source is valid. We are after all writing for our readers, rather than ourselves, and accordingly we have to err on the side of caution when in doubt. AndyTheGrump ( talk) 02:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Well, I have already provided a list with 25 books that use lonesentry as source, how many more do I need to provide? With ~80,000 hits on a Google search, I could probably provide a 100 more in the next day or two. How much time do I have?-- RAF910 ( talk) 02:31, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
MG 34 and MG 42 Machine Guns By Chris McNab
The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide
The Legacies of a Hawaiian Generation: From Territorial Subject to American ...By Judith Schachte
The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeid
Soviet Submachine Guns of World War II: PPD-40, PPSh-41 and PPS By Chris McNab
German Automatic Rifles 1941-45: Gew 41, Gew 43, FG 42 and StG 44 By Chris McNab
Faith and Fortitude: My WWII Memoirs By Ronald Bleecke
Unforgettable: The Biography of Captain Thomas J. Flynn By Alice Flynn
Steeds of Steel By Harry Yeide
West Point '41: The Class That Went to War and Shaped America By Anne Kazel-Wilcox, PJ Wilco
Tragedy at Dieppe: Operation Jubilee, August 19, 1942 By Mark Zuehlke
The Infantry's Armor: The U.S. Army's Separate Tank Battalions in World War II By Harry Yeide
4th Armored Division in World War II By George Forty
A Cause Greater than Self: The Journey of Captain Michael J. Daly, World War ...By Stephen J. Ochs
The Sky Rained Heroes: A Journey from War to Remembrance By Frederick E. LaCroix
The Generation that Saved America By Bettye B. Burkhalte
Dig & Dig Deep By Richard Arnold
World War II By Walter A. Haze
Hero Street, U.S.A.: The Story of Little Mexico's Fallen Soldiers By Marc Wilson
Letters Home: From a World War II "Black Panther" Artilleryman By Philip M. Coons, Harold M. Coons
Savage Lies: The Half-truths, Distortions and Outright Lies of a Right-wing ...By Bill Bowman
One-of-a-Kind Judge By Joan Cook Carabin
Operation Thunderclap and the Black March: Two Stories from the Unstoppable ...By Richard Allison
Going for Broke: Japanese American Soldiers in the War Against Nazi Germany By James M. McCaffry
Hard Times, War Times, and More Hard Times By London L. Gore
Saving Lives, Saving Honor By Jeremy C. Schwendiman
For the record this is extremely time consuming. I will continue to add books when time allows.-- RAF910 ( talk) 19:13, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
(e/c)
The discussion above seems to slightly miss the mark in several ways.
The source whose reliability is in question should be the 1945 article and not the reliability of republisher, LoneSentry. There appears to be a concession that if an image of the article were published, then it would be accepted as a true copy of the 1945 source. Frankly, it seems unlikely that the republisher would have changed content. I could expect some small transcription errors, but I would not expect gross content changes.
To put it another way, if the citation just identified the 1945 article (and did not link to LoneSentry.com), then would there be any debate about the reliability of the source?
The disclaimer about accuracy on the webpage seems to be the republisher denying responsibility for the original content. That does not impugn or praise the content of the 1945 document. The statement does further the belief that the republisher is providing an accurate copy: "No attempt has been made to update or correct the text."
Reading the document at LoneSentry (and assuming it is a copy of 1945 document), it appears to be a primary source with a significant bias against the weapon: "cheap stampings"; "dents easily and therefore is subject to jamming"; "Germany's unfavorable military situation"; comparing weight to the M1 carbine (how about Thompson's weight); "may have been intended to be an expendable weapon and to be thrown aside in combat" (really? what does the soldier have left to shoot?). I might use the 1945 article for some statements, but I would not give its opinions about the weapon much weight. They do not seem to be founded in any significant tests or research.
Also troubling is that in the StG 44 article, Musgrave (an apparent secondary source about German weapons) overrules the primary source opinion as not "an accurate view of the weapons characteristics". To me, that brings in a WP:UNDUE weight concern. At this point, my inclination is secondary sources are needed to state the weapon is inferior; otherwise Musgrave's assessment should prevail and primary sources should not be mentioned. I looked in Hatcher, and he says nothing about the family's reliability; if it were a bad weapon system, I'd expect some remark.
Glrx ( talk) 03:03, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
The LoneSentry.com transcription of the War Departments Tactical and Technical Trends should be accepted as a reliable copy of that government publication unless and until some other editor has accessed a printed or microfiche copy of that same publication and reported some error in the transcription of the document. It is unreasonable for an editor to object material that has been converted into an electronic format for the Internet. The verifiable rule means that other editors have the opportunity to verify. The burden for the editor objecting to this material is that he or she should find a copy of "Tactical and Technical Trends, No. 57, April 1945," and if he or she finds that the material quoted in the post is inaccurate, then and only then should that source be disputed. - GodBlessYou2 ( talk) 04:03, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document. It seems that User talk:Binksternet comments and evidence (be it unintentional) suggest that it is indeed a TRUE transcription of the original document. Also, User:Glrx comments above suggest that he also believes it to be a TRUE transcription of the original document.-- RAF910 ( talk) 05:53, 11 December 2014 (UTC)
Again, The question is not whether the the information provided in the U.S. War Department publication "Tactical and Technical Trends No. 57, April 1945, Machine Carbine Promoted" from http://www.lonesentry.com/articles/ttt07/stg44-assault-rifle.html is inaccurate or biased. The question is...if it's a TRUE transcription of the original U.S. War Department document...As for the idea that Joseph Balkoski's book From Brittany to the Reich is indisputable and trumps all other sources of information is nonsense and irrelevant to this discussion.-- RAF910 ( talk) 05:51, 12 December 2014 (UTC)
Assuming, the transcription is true...It accurately reflects the U.S. military opinion of the StG44 in 1945. It is also the first time the term "assault rifle" is used in an English source. As such it is an important historical document. Yes, over the next 20 years the U.S. military's opinion of the StG44 changed and by 1970 the "M16 Rifle Case Study. Prepared for the President's Blue Ribbon Defense Panel. March 16, 1970. By Richard R. Hallock, Colonel U.S. Army (Retired) http://pogoarchives.org/labyrinth/09/02.pdf" opinion was that "The principle of this weapon -- the reduction of muzzle impulse to get useful automatic fire within actual ranges of combat -- was probably the most important advance in small arms since the invention of smokeless powder." However, going back to the subject at hand. If this source is rejected as unreliable, then it can no longer be used on Wikipedia for any reason. The source may be deleted wherever it's used and anyone attempting to add the source in the future will be considered a vandal. This action will give some editors the ability to deny historical facts and impose their point of view on other editors. Which is in fact the reason, that we are discussing this issue in the first place.
We are not on this noticeboard to discuss the content on the StG44 page. We are here (at your request) to declare the lonesentry TaTT information an unreliable source and to ban it. If you have changed your mind and want to withdraw your challenge, then do so.-- RAF910 ( talk) 06:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
Source: [68] Article: 1956–57 exodus and expulsions from Egypt Dubious Content:
"Around 25,000 Jews were expelled from Egypt that year (1956)"
The article states that the entirety of the Jews who left Egypt in 1956 were expelled. No source was provided. Two other sources (Mainstream British newspaper and an Israeli college academic) agree that a minority of the Jews in Egypt - estimated at 500 - were expelled in 1956. The Algemeiner has therefore introduced an extreme POV, grossly distorting the best historical indications.
Previously I had come across other publications by The Algemeiner which I found to be dubious at best. Some examples are: º Calling Norman Finkelstein a "Holocaust defamer" (Finkelstein is the son of a holocaust victim) - http://www.algemeiner.com/2012/02/14/harvard-needs-some-schooling-on-the-middle-east/ º "During the Mandate, “Palestinian” referred to the Jews, while the Arabs were simply Arabs." - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/11/28/failure-of-the-two-state-solution-a-reply-to-ian-lustick/. In reality (see "Survey for Palestine" Jews are referred to as such; Arabised Palestinians are referred to as Arabs; and citizens of Palestine are referred to as Palestinians. º "(Falk) blames America and Israel for the Boston terrorist attacks" - http://www.algemeiner.com/2013/05/03/princeton-university-must-fire-professor-richard-falk/. Nowhere in his article does Falk use the work 'blame'. He mentions Israel exactly 5 times, and never in the context of responsibility for the Boston bombings.
Is this patern one of a disturbing propensity by The Algemeiner to massage the historical facts? Erictheenquirer ( talk) 10:58, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
The sentence "Greenpeace responded with apologies, claiming that demonstrators took care to avoid damage, but this is contradicted by video and photographs showing the activists wearing conventional shoes (not special protective shoes) while walking on the site" is sourced to [69]. Dougweller ( talk) 11:09, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
I note that kirkusreviews.com is currently cited by around 290 of our articles, and have to question the wisdom of using this source - they appear to publish reviews in return for a substantial payment from the author/publisher. [70] Am I right in assuming that (a) such payment means that they are not an independant source, and their reviews cannot be cited as evidence of notability, and (b) such payment is sufficient reason not to consider them worth citing at all? AndyTheGrump ( talk) 17:22, 14 December 2014 (UTC)
Do contemporary Buddhist teachers (with no western academic credentials in studies related to Buddhism) count as primary or secondary sources? VictoriaGrayson Talk 02:58, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
Hi All, I made two posts above asking about the viability of WSJ and children's books as sources, and haven't gotten any comments yet. Just a request for someone to look before these go to archives! - Darouet ( talk) 18:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
It has been proposed on electronic cigarette that the following text be added:
"A 2014 review stated that tobacco and e-cigarette companies interact with consumers for their policy agenda. The companies use websites, social media, and marketing to get consumers involved in opposing bills that include e-cigarettes in smoke-free laws. This is similar to tobacco industry activity going back to the 1980s, showing coordinated 'vapers' like coordinated smokers. It was concluded that the companies used these approaches in Europe to minimize the EU Tobacco Product Directive in October 2013. [1]"
based on the following source:
Convenience link to PDF here; relevant material in first paragraph of page 1982. It is published in the medical journal ( Circulation, probably one of the top two or three most read and respected cardiology journals in the world). A question of reliability of this as a source has been raised that since this is a medical source and the text being added is not strictly medical in nature. Comments on the reliability of this source for this text is appreciated! Yobol ( talk) 20:38, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
painting tens of thousands of politically-active e-cig consumers as Big Tobacco shills-- I do not get that the proposed content based on the source is saying this, at all.
Zad
68
03:49, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
I must say I'm surprised that it is being said that its acceptable to notify WP:MED of this discussion without notifying other interested parties at the article talk page. Anyway that is a separate issue, with regards to the source's reliability, surely a marketing strategy claim by a public health official is not as reliable as a medical claim? I understand that public health officials regularly voice their opinions on such issues but this fact surely doesn't make them experts on a non-medical topic? Lots of people regularly voice opinions on many things without being experts. Also does the disclosure that one of the source's authors "is a consultant to several pharmaceutical companies that market smoking cessation medications and has been a paid expert witness in litigation against tobacco companies" affect the reliability in relation to marketing strategy claims about e-cigarettes? Levelledout ( talk) 23:49, 5 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
Zad
68
05:11, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Uninvolved editors here believe the source is reliable for the claim. There was a discussion on the talk page. See Talk:Electronic cigarette/Archive 19#Proposed compromise. QuackGuru ( talk) 03:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)
I was going to this mention more than a week ago, but hoped things would fizzle out. In this case though, it looks like it would have been better if all the involved editors would hold off on commenting so much at RSN. Obviously folks are entitled to post here regardless of involvement, but it's very difficult to see what uninvolved editors actually gauged of things. It looks like the contentiousness at the article and enthusiasm of the editors has spilled over here. So far, posts by uninvolved editors (as much as I can tell at first glance) include: WhatamIdoing, Jytdog, Doc James, TFD, Alexbrn, and myself. All state to some degree or another that the source is reliable for the proposed content or that there are other sources that do the same as it is from experts in a journal commenting on a very closely related field. Best to use that to inform your work over at the article talk page. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 06:02, 15 December 2014 (UTC)
I don't see mention of a B-47 that crashed on Goose Bay Labrador around Feb 11 1959 The aircraft was from Witman AFB, enroute home from
Europe, landed for fuel, and failed to lift of in time catching an outrigger wheel in a snow bank, flipping the aircraft killing all aboard
How do I know this? I was in the Air Police stationed there, and had to work the site. Leo McCauley McNabb, IL.
I would like to reference data from this website in an article. My checks on this noticeboard reveal negative comments dated from 2007, so I need to revive the opinions. From their website, JfJfP claims the following support
At the end of 2010, our over 1,600 signatories included six rabbis; 110 professors (including five Fellows of the Royal Society and two fellows of the British Academy); 150 medical and academic doctors; several OBEs, CBEs and MBEs, six knights, one Member of Parliament and one member of the House of Lords. The list includes Prof Zygmunt Bauman, Sir Geoffrey Bindman, Rex Bloomstein, Jenny Diski, Moris Farhi MBE, Bella Freud, Stephen Fry, Roger Graef OBE, Dr Julian Huppert MP, Prof Mary Kaldor, Nicolas Kent, Baroness Beeban Kidron, Baroness Oona King, Prof Francesca Klug OBE, Peter Kosminsky, Mike Leigh, Miriam Margolyes OBE, Mike Marqusee, Dr Jonathan Miller, Rabbi Jeffrey Newman, Sophie Okonedo OBE, Prof Susie Orbach, Prof Jacqueline Rose FBA, Mike Rosen, Rabbi Elizabeth Tikvah Sarah, Alexei Sayle, Prof Lynne Segal, Will Self, Sir Antony Sher, Prof Avi Shlaim FBA, Gillian Slovo, Sir Tom Stoppard, Dame Janet Suzman and Zoë Wanamaker CBE
I find it difficult to believe that a) these illustrious people would not have been alerted if the claims are fraudulent, and b) that they can all and cumulatively give support to an organisation that publishes unreliable data - IN GENERAL - so I am going to conclude that the website is WP:RS in general. I fully appreciate that on individual specific issues it may contain errors, as does the NYT. Erictheenquirer ( talk) 09:38, 15 December 2014 (UTC)