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 185 | ← | Archive 188 | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | → | Archive 195 |
I'm writing here for User:VMS Mosaic, who has opened or otherwise participated in a few AfDs lately where he asserted that newspaper reviews should not be considered a reliable source. The AfDs in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Sin: London and its vices.
In the case of the Undercover article he asserts that "The "Undercover" reviews are basically nothing more than entries on the paper's "Undercover" editor's blog.", which includes reviews by the New Statesman, The Times, and the Sydney Morning Herald. He also likened getting on newspaper websites as "just one step above blog entries. Almost any literate person can write a review and get it published in the online additional of a smaller newspaper." I have to refute this since it is not that easy to get published on a newspaper's website. If he was talking about a website like The Patch, Blogcritics.org (although they do have an editorial staff), or the children/teen review portion of the Guardian I could see his point but papers like the SMH are pretty discerning in who they'll publish and any review on their website will still have to undergo some sort of editorial process. Similarly, any review not clearly marked as part of the Guardians' children's review program would be considered a review article that underwent some form of editorial oversight. (The children's reads will have a link to the project page at the end of the article like this one.)
I (along with others) have stated that the current guidelines view newspaper reviews as reliable sources and that the sources in any given article up for deletion would fall under these guidelines. What he's essentially proposing would make many newspapers unusable as reliable sources, so I've asked him to propose changes to RS and to NBOOK (since he's using this as a way to make this more strict). I figure this can start as a discussion here and go off from there. If it is changed to become more strict then so be it- I just don't think that taking multiple articles to AfD is the right avenue to get this ball rolling when policy currently affirms these as reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Source: http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2011/09/08/Smoke-and-Mirrors-Vancouver-10th-Anniversary-911
Article: Zeitgeist (film series)
Content:
The 4:20 Smoke and 9/11 Mirrors Flashmob will take place on Sunday, September 11 from 4:00pm - 4:30pm at the Vancouver Art Gallery as part of the Vancouver Zeitgeist Media Festival, a not-for-profit festival playing host to live music, visual and interactive art, speakers, and comedy featuring "forward-thinking local artists".
Aside from the editorial on conspiracy, is this a reliable source for describing the Zeitgeist Media Festival? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind( talk) 01:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Guy Macon ( talk · contribs) (at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Interwiki searches and case-sensitivity) claims that I am mistaken in saying "A Google search performed by myself cannot be guaranteed to return the same result as one performed by yourself; hence, a Google search results page fails WP:V and so cannot be used as the linked source in a reference". I say that I am not mistaken: not only because this search is non-repeatable (it will give different results for different people, partly because Google factors in your previous search terms) and transient (it will change with time, and cannot be permalinked or reached via a web archiving service like WayBack), but also because the reader is expected to draw their own conclusions from an examination of that Google search result. There needs to be a source that explicitly backs up the claim in the article, otherwise we have a failure of WP:V not to mention a violation of WP:NOR. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
generally, when editors go wrong in WP, they go wrong many ways at once. If you do what every policy and guideline says we should do - namely find the best secondary sources you can about something, read them, and craft content based on them, you will almost never go wrong. When editors do stuff like this - come in with some pre-determined goal and try to create content about it, they tend to wrong in many ways. Yes, the sourcing is questionable so WP:V and WP:RS come into play. Yes, this is WP:OR. Yes, giving any weight to this is UNDUE, because there are few/no secondary sources discussing it, so WP:NPOV is at play. Those are our three key content policies!. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog ( talk) 19:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that everyone carefully read Wikipedia:Search engine test (full disclosure: I wrote part of that guide) and that Redrose64 and/or Jytdog quote the exact wording of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that contradicts what that page says. In particular, I would like to see the policy or guideline that supports such claims as "a Google search results page fails WP:V and so cannot be used as the linked source in a reference" after I explained exactly how and where such a result can be used. (Which is, of course, with great care and a firm understanding of the many limitations of such a test.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups) to have any significance, the reader would need to know how the search results compare with other searches—for example, try apple dog love then explain whether there is anything unusual about the case in question. Either the claim is unimportant and can be omitted, or it is important and requires a secondary source for interpretation. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ca.papavero is insisting using WHOIS to describe the ownership of Carly Fiorina's websites, including information about the name of the owner (non notable person) and the fact that one of the domains names is under private registration, based on his understanding that WHOIS is an "official" source. That material was not reported as notable in any secondary source. Editors may weigh in at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#WHOIS. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Are the following sources used at Italian American#Culture considered reliable? The first is content written by self-described bloggers to verify the following content:
Italian American culture, and transplanted Italian culture, have influenced American culture in a variety of ways, such as: Italian restaurants, foods, coffees and desserts;
The second is from a website that appears to be a personal website, as described in its about page; the source claims to be an excerpt of a published item, and is used to verify the following content:
wine production (in California and elsewhere in the U.S.);
.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Is socialistworker.org a RS ? On facts? For establishing notability of an individual who is mentioned in this publication? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
To point out that their about page says they welcome reader contributions is true but a bit misleading. It says "We welcome contributions to our Labor News and Activist News sections--and to the ongoing discussions in our Readers' Views department." Anyway, I agree it's a valid source for the fact she has written for it, but probably marginally relevant or not at all in terms of her notability. Formerip ( talk) 12:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The following content was added to the Monsanto legal cases and to the Glyphosate article:
In April 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto alleging false advertising for the claim they made that Roundup herbicide (containing glyphosate as the active ingredient) acts on an enzyme that is not found in people. [1] The plaintiff claims that because the EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome, it is therefore found in people. The outcome of the case is pending.
Clarification: So as not to waste any uninvolved editor's time, and since this is a discussion, my underlying question at the relevant Talk page, which is the reason stated by Jytdog for creating this somewhat misrepresentative noticeboard posting is, Can the source as cited be used to verify the fact that a lawsuit was filed. IOW, if the legally recognized existence, at any stage, of a particular lawsuit is deemed noteworthy for inclusion in article content, is the above sourcing sufficient to establish verifiability at content level (per WP:SELFSOURCE). My question has nothing to do with then extracting content from the brief, simply of establishing, "On this day, X was filed." -- Tsavage ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.
Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
Reliable as to the claim made by the party. This would have to be weighed as to whether inclusion would be undue. Unreliable as to the merits of the case or claim. GregJackP Boomer! 18:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Reliable, but reliable secondary sources are to be preferred per PRIMARY. Almost certainly UNDUE to include it, however, since a single legal claim is almost certainly insignificant until (and maybe even then) fully litigated (through appeal, if appealed) or unless it becomes a cause célèbre and is widely covered in reliable secondary sources. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As others have said above, the source is technically sufficient as a source to establish that the lawsuit exists and to cite the fact that the plaintiffs are claiming such-and-such a thing (although any reference would have to have an in-text attribution making it clear that this is just what the plaintiffs claim and not established fact.) However, it would be better to find a secondary source referencing the lawsuit; crucially, the existence of a brief obviously doesn't establish that that lawsuit or brief are noteworthy. So to answer the original question -- yes, we can sometimes cite a legal brief as a primary source; but it has to be done carefully, and it would almost always be best to find a secondary source as well in order to establish that the legal brief is worth discussing. If absolutely nobody is reporting on this case, then it's hard to see why we should put it in the article, since it would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight; and if people are reporting on the case, we should cite to those reports rather than to the legal documents themselves. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Quit bringing it up then. I merely responded to your comment, which indicated that you work in law and that you know what you are talking about. In any event, the material is reliable as to the claim, possibly undue, and unreliable as to the merits. GregJackP Boomer! 18:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"just fyi I work in law, so please stop saying that i don't know what i am talking about.", by which you brought your competence in the law into the discussion. I'm happy to drop it, but I'm not going to let you paint this as a situation where you are being mistreated. If you don't want your knowledge of the law discussed, don't bring it up. GregJackP Boomer! 19:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A PROD i recently added to a new article was removed with the addition of a reference to this webpage, which does indeed mention this episode by name. However, I am not sure whether this source is reliable (mainly because I don't speak German), which is why I am bringing it here for further discussion. Everymorning talk 00:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Previous discussion doesn't seem to have come to a solid conclusion.
As issue is a divorce date for Sharon Leal. The offered source says, "Married October 2001 Divorced 2007" without a byline (which seems to have been important in the prior discussion.
Separately, Essence magazine gives confusing information that seems to dispute this. An article dated either November 2008 (in the URL) or December 2009 (in the copy) has Leal saying she was "going through a divorce right now...", though no sources seem to indicate another marriage in 2007or after that could have been ending in late 2008 or late 2009.
IMDb (not a reliable source, but doesn't mention any marriage(s)) gives a link for her official site, but it is a dead link.
Thoughts? - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute Pearl S. Bucks alleged involvement the the Sixties Scoop. The content was repeatedly added by an IP/new user possibly in good faith but reverted by me and another editor due to insufficient sources. See the following edits for that.
The issue with the provided sources currently is that even their existence is not easy to verify and their reputation is unclear and whether they alone provide enough notability for the content to mentioned seems rather questionable as well (at least to me). As I want to avoid an edit war, I'd appreciate some other editors to asses sources and content. The sources in question from the 2 edits are:
Best comment on the article's talk page at Talk:Pearl_S._Buck#Sixties_Scoop to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks in advance.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
CoinDesk has been used as a source at the Bitcoin page. Recently, a user marked it as unreliable. The facts are:
Source: http://www.kotkalan.com/sports.html Article: Kabaddi Content: "General reliability"
Fellow Wikipedians, I am currently doing some copy editing of the Kabaddi article, and found this source, which I am considering data mining for some additional facts to flesh out the article. Before I do so, could you please let me know what you think of the source from a reliability pov?
Many thanks for any advice that you are able to give. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of this before seeing it being used (and removed) at Axact. It claims to have "professional editors, writers, columnists and reporters, hailing from Pakistan & from other parts of the world, along with those having years of journalistic experience". [10] However, its owner's blog says "We are famous Online news agency.We are working with honestly.If you want to publish your news or wants to publish your Brand contact us at humarinews@gmail.com" [11] which makes me wonder. This statement (warning?) in regard to anyone who thinks they are reprinting copyright material [12] doesn't encourage me. Looking at the front page, [13] most of the material seems to be written by the website's owner, Usama Abbasi, who seems to actually be a blogger, not a journalist. [14] See also its FB page [15] which shows its url as http://www.humarinews.blogspot.com/ which takes you to http://www.humarinews.com/ Dougweller ( talk) 08:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Would pages from http://www.dailyscript.com/index.html be considered to be reliable as sources? An editor has added this page from the website to cite information in Beetlejuice#"Beetlejuice" or "Betelgeuse". I cannot find anything about the website other than it is "a collection of movie scripts and screenplays to serve as a resource for writers and actors and those who simply enjoy reading movie scripts." I guess that means it is sort of a database for scripts and does not generate the content itself, right? Does that mean the script being cited is a primary source? Can it be used in this way if it is? FWIW, I think the edit that was made is not entirely correct and does not reflect what is said in the source. I just want to see if the source is reliable before fixing the bare url and fixing the text. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a concern regarding usage of FILMIBEAT.COM (previously known as entertainment.oneindia.in, which redirects) as a source for WP:BLP articles. The content is poorly written and does not strike me as a source we should be incorporating into our encyclopedia.
For example, the Raadhika Sarathkumar article refers to this link as a source:
I am seeking community input as to whether or not we should be relying on this website for biographical texts. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Press TV is the Iranian state television service. At Talk:United_Synagogue#Rewrite there is some discussion as to whether it can be relied upon as a reliable source related to criticism of a Jewish religious organisation ( United Synagogue) and its links with Zionism and Israel. I'd welcome input. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
User Maury Markowitz restored the following to W71 article: 'To take advantage of the range of soft x-rays in space, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is reported to have designed or "tailored" the warhead's secondary with a gold liner, instead of the usual depleted uranium or lead, which maximized x-ray production'. The source given is the page http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html from website 'Johnston's Archive'. This appears to be a self-published site and so unsuitable as a source. The give page in turn references Chuck Hansen's 1988 book U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History. I don't have access to this book, so I can't comment on its content. If this source supports the claim, then it should be quoted directly instead. - Crosbie 05:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. The basic rule for any collection source of this sort, SPS or not, is that the work contains quality references. Encyclopedia Astronautica is SPS, but is based on clearly indicated high quality cites, and is widely used here.
Looking at the site in question, I find two and a half pages of references for an article body about 6 pages long (excluding the TOC). Those references are widely used in articles here, including FA's. That said, I've only passed over them.
Do you have a specific reason for doubting this page as a source, other than it being SPS? Remember, SPS is not "self-published is bad", it's more like "self-published requires closer examination". I do not see that having taken place here. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
How reliable is politicalgraveyard.com for biographical information (non BLP)? Blueboar ( talk) 12:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this site for use in an article. It seems well done and the editors appear to be knowledgeable and reasonably neutral. My concern is the perceived lack of editorial oversight. Any opinions? [16]. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm wanting use this website as a source but I'm uncertain of its reliability. I'm particularly wanting to use this story for a WP:BLP article. Could someone give me a heads up please? Thanks in advance. Slay A Bit ( talk) 01:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Middayexpress is replacing an Economist article which says the Camden Somali Youth Development Resource Centre helped pupils to improve their exam results with a letter to a local paper from the centre chairman. Surely this is not independent of the source? http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21583710-somalis-fare-much-worse-other-immigrants-what-holds-them-back-road-long http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/030608/letters030608_02.html Talk:Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom#Somali_Youth_Development_Resource_Centre BrumEduResearch ( talk) 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually not insisting on the letter, though as the Chairman of the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre, its author is certainly very reliable on the functions of his organization. I think this ceremony link on the centre's annual awards is preferable. It was pointed out that that ceremony link only insinuates that the organization was credited with having helped to improve the exam results, which I suppose is true. However, the same could be said for the other link. It too doesn't assert outright that the organization helped to achieve this, only that that was its founding objective. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The Temple of Olympian Zeus was used as an notable example of an ancient White elephant supported by this source [19]. The example was deleted Special:Diff/657763586/657830976 because according to the user Beeblebrox its source was weak, appearing to be the personal web page of a single college professor. However my argument which is also expressed in the talk page: Talk:White elephant is that for such a kind of white elephants the only sources can be found are pretty much coming form history professors, since in the ancient times the term "White Elephant" didn't exist, and in modern times the media and the journalists write articles only for the modern White Elephants, since nowadays the Temple of Olympian Zeus is more famous as a historical monument rather than as a White Elephant of its times. My view is that for various reasons this is a very significant and unique example with high encyclopedic value and should be restored in the article. Can therefore this source be used as a reliable source? Clicklander ( talk) 11:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia article: "..it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered without use or value.". The professor characterises the temple as "a white elephant that had been sitting half-finished for half a millennium". I do not see how he could mean something different than the definition given in the article by using that term. Clicklander ( talk) 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have found a PhD thesis that could potentially support some material at British Cypriots. Noting what WP:SCHOLARSHIP says about theses ("Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available..., can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources"), I wanted to get advice here first. The thesis concerned is this one, and I want to draw on the material about tolerance on p. 2 to expand the paragraph at the end of the history section. The PhD was awarded by Sussex, a reputable university, and the author has since been appointed to a lectureship at Queen's University Belfast. Can I have other editors' thoughts on whether I should use this? Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Updating The 2010
Archive 84: A Report from February 2014 - Executive Chairman of Breitbart(dotcom) News, Stephen K. Bannon's announcement of Breitbart(dotcom)'s turn from an opinion website to a Global Syndication - The Breitbart organization connects Texas & current London-based operations. The extensions to Florida & California in the US, and development in Cairo, Egypt & Jerusalem. These offices are the beginning of an expansion that would add a new regional site (roughly) every 90 days.
_NYT Source
I'm taking into account this critique: "Breitbart is categorically not a RS, for very famous reasons
1,
2 regarding HIS (lack of) journalistic integrity. Sceptre 07:11, 19 December 2010 "
as well this current perspective, "Brietbart is not a reliable source because, wait for it, ...... JOURNALISTIC ETHICS!!!
3 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 26 May 2015"
A review of the presented "sourced materials";
1,
2, and
3 that seek to disqualify Breitbart(dotcom). Take notice that each criticism belongs to deceased blogger
Andrew Breitbart & his opinion website BigCompany, but not Breitbart(dotcom) itself ... These are inexact to BreitBart, The 2015 Global News Syndicate. Conclusively, if anyone sources the deceased journalist himself or his defunct blog, I concur, would validate "illegitimacy" - but today's Breitbart(dotcom) meets the distinctions of
a reliable source.
--
j0eg0d (
talk) 08:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart is a fast growing news organization. From their site: "Founded in 2005 by conservative icon Andrew Breitbart, Breitbart News Network is the biggest source of breaking news and analysis, thought-leading commentary, and original reporting curated and written specifically for the new generation of independent and conservative thinkers. Known for hard hitting, no holds-barred journalism along with world-class aggregation, Breitbart News is growing rapidly. The company recently added bureaus in London, Texas, and California, and is currently in the process of launching additional bureaus and verticals." It is a professionally managed news corporation that has been around for 10 years now. I suggest the opinions are reliable for their opinions, and their reporting is as reliable as other such entities (HuffPost, etc.) Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Updating The 2010
Archive 84
Proposal of a Secondary Resolution: Apologies for any facetiousness, but this begs to question ... If Breitbart(dotcom) is the "unreliable source" founded by Community Consensus; Then this conclusion must demand Wikipedia to remove every source of Brietbart(dotcom) from every WIKI page that presents it as a RELIABLE source. How many articles is that(?) Do you imagine?
Masem,
BusterD,
TyTyMang,
Geni,
Capitalismojo,
JzG,
Arzel,
108.52.24.214 &
77.97.24.152
--
j0eg0d (
talk) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Many of you are ignoring the obvious; These URL sources that refute reliability of Breitbart(dotcom) are FIRST alluding to Andrew Breitbart & his BigGovernment blog ... not Breitbart(dotcom) itself. Breitbart(dotcom) came after the BigGovernment blog - They aren't the same thing. SECONDLY the man Andrew Breitbart has been deceased for 3 years. He doesn't contribute to Breitbart(dotcom) or manage it's global syndication. My observation is recognizing political separations here; Breitbart(dotcom) certainly leans towards conservative views and it's understandable that liberal ideologies (Washington Post, NY Times, ETC) would argue "merit". Politics encourages this discourse, but it isn't Wikipedia's policy to pick sides. --
j0eg0d (
talk) 08:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside the rather hysterical thread above, Law School Transparency actually does not appear to be a reliable source, and does appear to have been systematically added against Wikipedia guidelines. It's a campaigning website, in the end, and I'm not seeing much evidence that it is widely regarded as an authority of sufficient significance to be added to this many articles. Put simply, there is good reaosn to think that LST wants to (and does) use Wikipedia to promote its cause, and weak evidence if any at all that including its links improves our articles. Guy ( Help!) 16:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
References
References
There are quite a few YouTube links being cited as reiable sources in this article. They are not in English so I can't say for sure if they are acceptable as reliable sources per WP:RS. It's hard to tell if these are official YT news channels or simply videos uploaded by somebody connected to the groups. Some of the videos seem to have been removed from YT whicb might mean there were copyright issues. Regardless, the few I've watched seem to be statements made by various groups which might be a problem per WP:NOTSOAP. I am interested in hearing the opinions of others on this. Thanks in adavnce. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this article website a reliable source for the following statement made in the article for Diyarbakır.
According to a November 2006 survey by the Sur Municipality, one of Diyarbakır's metropolitan municipalities, 72% of the inhabitants of the municipality use Kurdish most often in their daily speech, followed by Turkish, with small minorities of Assyrians, Armenians and Yezidis still resident.
I am mainly interested in the accuracy of the 72% statistic as some editors are arguing that no one in Diyarbakır speaks Kurdish. A machine translation gives "What language most spoken in our daily lives we?' 72 percent of respondents to the question of Kurdish, 24 percent of Turkish" but it is difficult for me to evaluate the validity of the source as I do not speak Turkish, but I would like to know if this source is reliable. Thank you for your assistance. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Can Tree-Ring Services be used to supplement architectural dating info provided by Historic England? The article in question is Denham, Buckinghamshire, and the text that this source is/was being used to support is "Analysis of a sample of timbers from the main building and its associated barn have found that they were felled in the winters of 1472/3 and 1473/4, indicating that the relevant parts of the building were erected in 1474 or soon after". Because this info is different to the dating given by Historic England, and because Tree-Ring Services is a commercial site that is advertising its service and I wasn't sure of its reliability, I removed the text and ref ( diff). There is a brief discussion, with extra detail from another editor ( Brixtonhill), here. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 07:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ran into this group reading American Islamic Forum for Democracy trying to figure out who Timothy Furnish is. [23] Wondered if we had an article on it. We don't, but it's used quite a bit as a source. [24] In Muslims Against Crusades it's used as a source for statements about two living people. The source is [25] and is written by the editor. It starts "Forget notions of freedom of speech in Britain. Freedom of speech, if it does still exist in that Godforsaken country, is now subject to cultural relativism." I haven't looked any further yet, but that looks pretty dubious as a source. Doug Weller 14:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to know whether Kirkus Reviews in general, and this one in particular, are considered reliable sources for the articles about the books they are reviewing (in this case, A Son Called Gabriel). Everymorning talk 17:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A particular user has been going on adding the link called siskelandebert.com to various film related article's EL section. While being reverted the user edit wars and in one of the article, Madonna: Truth or Dare he left this message on the talk page. Can you guys help me out with the validity of these statements? — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Please remove all links to siskelandebert.org -- thank you! Firstmagnitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmagnitude ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC+9)
Hi,
I am submitting Robert Bateman's "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" for consideration. As of 2015, the book has been at the center of a very heated and prolonged debate on No Gun Ri Massacre, which has led to ban attempts and undoubtedly frightened off many editors. This book has been submitted previously here, but little input was given.
I would greatly appreciate any and all input by editors uninvolved in the NGR dispute.
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 20:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The book is published by Stackpole Books and has been well received. Some reviews:
Just adding some of the reviews. WeldNeck ( talk) 20:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This source was previously considered at the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#No_Gun_Ri:_A_Military_History_of_the_Korean_War_Incident with an additional comment after archiving Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_154#No_Gun_Ri.2C_Bateman_book.-- Wikimedes ( talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
As an outside observer who had not even heard of the No Gun Ri Massacre before this moment, i just spent half an hour reading this section, some of the reviews, and much of the talk page at the article itself. I see that this is a very contentious issue about interpretation and representation of reality on Wikipedia, where the reality itself is contested. There are passionate voices on both "sides" so we have a polarized conflict here. I think it is very important to listen carefully to the different voices, and to work to depolarize as much as possible among the editors, and to use sources that are not essentially aligned with one side or the other of the contested reality. When a source that is clearly on one "side" is used, then it should be framed as a controversial and contested source, and not used on the same level as another source that is not so contested. The article itself should describe the controversy about the incident as clearly and neutrally as possible, instead of pretending that there is no controversy over what occurred, with a behind-the-scenes tug-of-war constantly going on over the content. I think it's better to admit and describe a controversy in an article, than to engage in it within Wikipedia itself, when possible. My reading on Bateman's book is that it seems to have been written with an agenda, a desired outcome, and to have the smell of a cherry-picking biased piece of work, rather than someone coming to the incident and controversy with an open mind. Mind you, this is all based on reading several reviews and googling the book and author for 10 minutes. It's my outsider's bird's-eye-view. If any specific claim must be sourced to Bateman's book, i'd assume it's because it's not reported by any other source. I'd prefer that other sources be used in the article's claims, and that anything sourced solely to Bateman's book, if anything, be clearly attributed with a note on the controversial nature of the book and the apparent conflict of interest of the author of the book in relation to the subject matter. There's definitely serious contention about what happened in reality, here, and i think it's very important for the article to embody that, so that readers get the sense of the controversy. It's important for the article not to buy into one "side" of the controversy, and also for the relative weight of differing versions to be accurately represented, so that a fringe theory does not become central to the article if that is indeed the case, but so that valid critiques are not omitted either. I know, that's a tall order from an outside observer, and maybe it won't help much. I have been in a couple of heated debates about what to include in a congtroversial article, and from this, i know the importance of good dialogue, and having fair-minded outsiders providing some help or commentary, and i hope i may have helped. SageRad ( talk) 14:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I came across the draft Draft:John Harrison Finger - Mr. Walk America, which had some issues with sourcing. There are a ton of sources, but none of them have any links. A lot of the coverage is from the 1940s through the 1980s, before the Internet really became a thing. If the sources can be verified in some format then that would help establish notability given the length of coverage over time. The article's creator, Walking High Point, is more than happy to e-mail us the articles but I don't know that this is really something that would solve the issue. Maybe they could upload them somewhere like a website? I know that sometimes we can use uploaded newspaper articles if they show the full newspaper information like this one does. I don't know if this is something WP:ORTS does, but maybe he could file a ticket with them verifying that the clippings are legit? There's got to be something we can do. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Can I use this ( archive) source for supporting the claim that he was nominated for an award on the page List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi, currently at FLC. Regards, -- Skr15081997 ( talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism. Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.
A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] for example.
I would like to ask, as a generic discussion, whether these works are generically suitable as a WP:RS for the purposes of Wikipedia. They pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general I would say they are not considered a wholly reliable source for material for Wikipedia. Below I set out why, with reference to views in academia.
Monica Rein (11 March 1998). Politics and Education in Argentina, 1946-1962. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-7656-4000-0. Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate Caudillos (Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations.
Michael Goebel (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-1-84631-238-0. Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.
Luis Alberto Romero (31 October 2013). A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition. Penn State Press. pp. 88–. ISBN 978-0-271-06410-9. Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the Caudillos such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.
Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). Argentina: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7. Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.
David Rock (1993). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History, and Its Impact. University of California Press. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-0-520-91724-8. Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".
Nicolas Shumway (26 May 1991). The Invention of Argentina. University of California Press. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-0-520-91385-1. Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.
The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Goebel notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.
As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as WP:FRINGE. I would suggest their main use would be as sources of revisionist thought but as they lack scholastic standards, unreliable for historical fact. W C M email 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a noobie here and I have a question about primary vs secondary sources. I've read the guidelines at WP:SECONDARY but I need some guidance on this question. There is an ongoing study carried out by University of Auckland called New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. They have published results of the survey (as far as I can this was peer reviewed and carried out by highly qualified researchers), you can see on an example here [1].
1. Would you consider the link directly to University of Auckland's results to be a primary or secondary source? To my thinking, the primary source is the raw survey data and this interpretation of the data is a secondary source. Would anyone care to comment on this.
2. To cite a reference in Wikipedia, would you prefer a link to the University page (which reads more like a press release that an academic journal to me) or to a national newspaper which has largely copy/pasted what the University wrote.
Thanks for your time. 101.98.220.113 ( talk) 04:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
References
A self-published website, http://tsort.info, is being used in 54 of our music articles. [32] The website compiles statistics about songs, albums and artists. Is it reliable?
A typical appearance of this reference is at " Creole Love Call". The article text says that the song "entered the Billboard USA song charts in 1928 at No. 19." [33] The named source is Billboard magazine, so this should be verifiable, if someone had the 1928 back issues. They are not scanned and hosted online yet.
Another typical appearance is at Sheryl Crow's "All I Wanna Do" where the website is used to say that the song peaked at number 5 in Japan and number 15 in Poland. [34] No sources are cited.
The website owner is Steve Hawtin, who describes himself as an obsessive "computer person" with experience in information architecture. No professional connection to the music industry. Binksternet ( talk) 17:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
1. Source: http://www.cuny.tv/highlight/sp2000039 (12 min segment covering zeitgeist)
2. Article: Zeitgeist (film series)
3. Content: Factual claims from the reporter/graduate student, Andrew Falzon.
At first I only saw the vimeo linked segment and although it was well done, I thought this piece was a spoof. Upon further digging, I found the CUNY TV link hosting the full 1 hour special and stating:
It's a very unique situation produced by graduate students with apparent professional editorial oversight and jointly produced by CBS News. I want to use it for the 12 min segment covering the zeitgeist movement and films. I'm leaning toward it being reliable now, but it is such an unusual situation. What does the community think? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind T 03:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Updated OnlyInYourMind T 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
These two websites have recently been used to source information about American Public University System. Thoughts? -- JBL ( talk) 20:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Mary Cawkell (2001). The History of the Falkland Islands. Anthony Nelson. ISBN 978-0-904614-55-8.
Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland Story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4.
M. B. R. Cawkell (1960). The Falkland Islands: By M.B.R. Cawkell, D. H. Maling and E. M. Cawkell. Macmillan.
Mary Cawkell is a British historian who has written a number of books about the Falkland Islands.
Her first book, published in 1960 by Macmillan, [35], a publishing house noted for producing science and education texts.
Her later works, were published by Anthony Nelson, as a publisher they appear to be now defunct. However, [36] a search on AbeBooks shows mainly academic works.
Mary Cawkell died in 2001, whilst her last book was being published. Her obituary [37] noted:
“ | Mary Cawkell was born in Wigtown, Scotland in 1907. She remained there until her early 20s when she moved to Africa, travelling extensively in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. During the war she worked in the Lebanon where she met her husband. After the war her husband joined the Colonial Service and was posted to the Falklands as Superintendent of Education. She and her family first went to the Falklands at the beginning of the 1950s and lived there for seven years. This was a start of a lifelong interest in, and affection for, the Islands. Mary became a respected author on the Falklands which provided her with endless material for many articles and broadcasts covering all aspects of life there, from past to present and from peat to penguins. The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion. From the Falklands the family moved to West Africa, to The Gambia where Mary continued with her journalism. After she returned to England she carried on with travelling and writing, spending time in eastern communist countries then little visited. In her later years she lived in Sussex and worked on updating her history of the Falklands. | ” |
She is quoted in the Bibliography of virtually every book that has been written on the Falkland Islands [38] of all nationalities. Its widely used on wikipedia Falkland Islands, History of the Falkland Islands, Luis Vernet, Matthew Brisbane, Antonina Roxa to name but a few.
As an author and published works, I have not seen any secondary source criticise her work for inaccuracy.
I now have an Argentine editor, asserting this work is unreliable. His reasons include:
1. "Her book was published with the support of the British Government, in fact Sir Rex Hunt wrote its foreword."
This is untrue, it had no support from the British Government, Sir Rex Hunt wrote the foreword as a private individual following his retirement.
2. "I realized Mary Cawkell was an amateur local historian, an therefore to be used with care."
In fact, a professional journalist, who happened to specialise on Falklands history due to a personal connection.
3. Talk:History of the Falkland Islands#Recent Revert a long and tortuous comment but basically alleging differences between her 1960 work and 2001 edition mean her work is "amateurish" and "unreliable".
The facts in both works are consistent, but whilst the 1960 edition focused on Luis Vernet the 2001 edition focused more on Lt Smith (a work in progress in my sandpit). However, it would not be unusual for a later work to included updated information based on later research and even if there were a conflict (there isn't) that is not reason to infer those conclusions.
I have to note that there is nationalist motive usually in these claims, since he is attempting to assert Mary Cawkell to be unreliable, remove cites and then declare the work to be uncited and on that basis remove certain information it seems he considers detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim. Example, he wishes to remove any mention of Luis Vernet's dealing with the British after 1833. See History of the Falkland Islands#British colonisation.
I am tired of this constant and endless argumentation based on criticism by speculation and the personal opinions of this editor. I would simply like to get on with the works in my sandpit. Whilst I have no wish to drag others into this but I would be grateful if any editors who feel able to comment, would confirm that by any standard applied to sources on wikipedia this is reliable. W C M email 18:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, there are three issues here:
And this is only English literature! There is no mention in Spanish literature either.
Last but not least, there is no mention to some "British permission" in:
Yeah... you read that right Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons.
In sum, the absence of references to a permission in British Government documents and academic literature is the key element here. This is an obsession of British hardliner nationalists and is ignore by... well... the rest of the word, including all British academics and diplomats!
Evidence is overwhelming. This is not even WP:FRINGE.
Regards -- ProfesorFavalli ( talk) 02:38, 10 June 2015 (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 185 | ← | Archive 188 | Archive 189 | Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | → | Archive 195 |
I'm writing here for User:VMS Mosaic, who has opened or otherwise participated in a few AfDs lately where he asserted that newspaper reviews should not be considered a reliable source. The AfDs in question are Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Undercover: The True Story of Britain's Secret Police, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Disenchantment: The Guardian and Israel, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Guantánamo: America's War on Human Rights, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/City of Sin: London and its vices.
In the case of the Undercover article he asserts that "The "Undercover" reviews are basically nothing more than entries on the paper's "Undercover" editor's blog.", which includes reviews by the New Statesman, The Times, and the Sydney Morning Herald. He also likened getting on newspaper websites as "just one step above blog entries. Almost any literate person can write a review and get it published in the online additional of a smaller newspaper." I have to refute this since it is not that easy to get published on a newspaper's website. If he was talking about a website like The Patch, Blogcritics.org (although they do have an editorial staff), or the children/teen review portion of the Guardian I could see his point but papers like the SMH are pretty discerning in who they'll publish and any review on their website will still have to undergo some sort of editorial process. Similarly, any review not clearly marked as part of the Guardians' children's review program would be considered a review article that underwent some form of editorial oversight. (The children's reads will have a link to the project page at the end of the article like this one.)
I (along with others) have stated that the current guidelines view newspaper reviews as reliable sources and that the sources in any given article up for deletion would fall under these guidelines. What he's essentially proposing would make many newspapers unusable as reliable sources, so I've asked him to propose changes to RS and to NBOOK (since he's using this as a way to make this more strict). I figure this can start as a discussion here and go off from there. If it is changed to become more strict then so be it- I just don't think that taking multiple articles to AfD is the right avenue to get this ball rolling when policy currently affirms these as reliable sources. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 10:25, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Source: http://www.cannabisculture.com/content/2011/09/08/Smoke-and-Mirrors-Vancouver-10th-Anniversary-911
Article: Zeitgeist (film series)
Content:
The 4:20 Smoke and 9/11 Mirrors Flashmob will take place on Sunday, September 11 from 4:00pm - 4:30pm at the Vancouver Art Gallery as part of the Vancouver Zeitgeist Media Festival, a not-for-profit festival playing host to live music, visual and interactive art, speakers, and comedy featuring "forward-thinking local artists".
Aside from the editorial on conspiracy, is this a reliable source for describing the Zeitgeist Media Festival? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind( talk) 01:19, 15 May 2015 (UTC)
Guy Macon ( talk · contribs) (at Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)/Archive 137#Interwiki searches and case-sensitivity) claims that I am mistaken in saying "A Google search performed by myself cannot be guaranteed to return the same result as one performed by yourself; hence, a Google search results page fails WP:V and so cannot be used as the linked source in a reference". I say that I am not mistaken: not only because this search is non-repeatable (it will give different results for different people, partly because Google factors in your previous search terms) and transient (it will change with time, and cannot be permalinked or reached via a web archiving service like WayBack), but also because the reader is expected to draw their own conclusions from an examination of that Google search result. There needs to be a source that explicitly backs up the claim in the article, otherwise we have a failure of WP:V not to mention a violation of WP:NOR. -- Redrose64 ( talk) 10:28, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
generally, when editors go wrong in WP, they go wrong many ways at once. If you do what every policy and guideline says we should do - namely find the best secondary sources you can about something, read them, and craft content based on them, you will almost never go wrong. When editors do stuff like this - come in with some pre-determined goal and try to create content about it, they tend to wrong in many ways. Yes, the sourcing is questionable so WP:V and WP:RS come into play. Yes, this is WP:OR. Yes, giving any weight to this is UNDUE, because there are few/no secondary sources discussing it, so WP:NPOV is at play. Those are our three key content policies!. Do you see what I mean? Jytdog ( talk) 19:15, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
I would suggest that everyone carefully read Wikipedia:Search engine test (full disclosure: I wrote part of that guide) and that Redrose64 and/or Jytdog quote the exact wording of any Wikipedia policy or guideline that contradicts what that page says. In particular, I would like to see the policy or guideline that supports such claims as "a Google search results page fails WP:V and so cannot be used as the linked source in a reference" after I explained exactly how and where such a result can be used. (Which is, of course, with great care and a firm understanding of the many limitations of such a test.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 22:19, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
This case is widely cited on the Internet in blogs and discussion groups) to have any significance, the reader would need to know how the search results compare with other searches—for example, try apple dog love then explain whether there is anything unusual about the case in question. Either the claim is unimportant and can be omitted, or it is important and requires a secondary source for interpretation. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Ca.papavero is insisting using WHOIS to describe the ownership of Carly Fiorina's websites, including information about the name of the owner (non notable person) and the fact that one of the domains names is under private registration, based on his understanding that WHOIS is an "official" source. That material was not reported as notable in any secondary source. Editors may weigh in at Talk:Carly_Fiorina#WHOIS. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:05, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
Are the following sources used at Italian American#Culture considered reliable? The first is content written by self-described bloggers to verify the following content:
Italian American culture, and transplanted Italian culture, have influenced American culture in a variety of ways, such as: Italian restaurants, foods, coffees and desserts;
The second is from a website that appears to be a personal website, as described in its about page; the source claims to be an excerpt of a published item, and is used to verify the following content:
wine production (in California and elsewhere in the U.S.);
.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 21:56, 16 May 2015 (UTC)
Is socialistworker.org a RS ? On facts? For establishing notability of an individual who is mentioned in this publication? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 23:18, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
To point out that their about page says they welcome reader contributions is true but a bit misleading. It says "We welcome contributions to our Labor News and Activist News sections--and to the ongoing discussions in our Readers' Views department." Anyway, I agree it's a valid source for the fact she has written for it, but probably marginally relevant or not at all in terms of her notability. Formerip ( talk) 12:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
The following content was added to the Monsanto legal cases and to the Glyphosate article:
In April 2015, a lawsuit was filed against Monsanto alleging false advertising for the claim they made that Roundup herbicide (containing glyphosate as the active ingredient) acts on an enzyme that is not found in people. [1] The plaintiff claims that because the EPSP synthase enzyme is found in microbes of the human gut microbiome, it is therefore found in people. The outcome of the case is pending.
Clarification: So as not to waste any uninvolved editor's time, and since this is a discussion, my underlying question at the relevant Talk page, which is the reason stated by Jytdog for creating this somewhat misrepresentative noticeboard posting is, Can the source as cited be used to verify the fact that a lawsuit was filed. IOW, if the legally recognized existence, at any stage, of a particular lawsuit is deemed noteworthy for inclusion in article content, is the above sourcing sufficient to establish verifiability at content level (per WP:SELFSOURCE). My question has nothing to do with then extracting content from the brief, simply of establishing, "On this day, X was filed." -- Tsavage ( talk) 15:33, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight mean that articles should not give minority views or aspects as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views or widely supported aspects. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all, except perhaps in a "see also" to an article about those specific views. For example, the article on the Earth does not directly mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give undue weight to it.
Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment of any kind: commercial, political, scientific, religious, national, sports-related, or otherwise. An article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to describe the topic from a neutral point of view. You might wish to start a blog or visit a forum if you want to convince people of the merits of your opinions.
Reliable as to the claim made by the party. This would have to be weighed as to whether inclusion would be undue. Unreliable as to the merits of the case or claim. GregJackP Boomer! 18:04, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
Reliable, but reliable secondary sources are to be preferred per PRIMARY. Almost certainly UNDUE to include it, however, since a single legal claim is almost certainly insignificant until (and maybe even then) fully litigated (through appeal, if appealed) or unless it becomes a cause célèbre and is widely covered in reliable secondary sources. Regards, TransporterMan ( TALK) 16:03, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
As others have said above, the source is technically sufficient as a source to establish that the lawsuit exists and to cite the fact that the plaintiffs are claiming such-and-such a thing (although any reference would have to have an in-text attribution making it clear that this is just what the plaintiffs claim and not established fact.) However, it would be better to find a secondary source referencing the lawsuit; crucially, the existence of a brief obviously doesn't establish that that lawsuit or brief are noteworthy. So to answer the original question -- yes, we can sometimes cite a legal brief as a primary source; but it has to be done carefully, and it would almost always be best to find a secondary source as well in order to establish that the legal brief is worth discussing. If absolutely nobody is reporting on this case, then it's hard to see why we should put it in the article, since it would be giving it WP:UNDUE weight; and if people are reporting on the case, we should cite to those reports rather than to the legal documents themselves. -- Aquillion ( talk) 12:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
Sigh. Quit bringing it up then. I merely responded to your comment, which indicated that you work in law and that you know what you are talking about. In any event, the material is reliable as to the claim, possibly undue, and unreliable as to the merits. GregJackP Boomer! 18:29, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
"just fyi I work in law, so please stop saying that i don't know what i am talking about.", by which you brought your competence in the law into the discussion. I'm happy to drop it, but I'm not going to let you paint this as a situation where you are being mistreated. If you don't want your knowledge of the law discussed, don't bring it up. GregJackP Boomer! 19:35, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
A PROD i recently added to a new article was removed with the addition of a reference to this webpage, which does indeed mention this episode by name. However, I am not sure whether this source is reliable (mainly because I don't speak German), which is why I am bringing it here for further discussion. Everymorning talk 00:41, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Previous discussion doesn't seem to have come to a solid conclusion.
As issue is a divorce date for Sharon Leal. The offered source says, "Married October 2001 Divorced 2007" without a byline (which seems to have been important in the prior discussion.
Separately, Essence magazine gives confusing information that seems to dispute this. An article dated either November 2008 (in the URL) or December 2009 (in the copy) has Leal saying she was "going through a divorce right now...", though no sources seem to indicate another marriage in 2007or after that could have been ending in late 2008 or late 2009.
IMDb (not a reliable source, but doesn't mention any marriage(s)) gives a link for her official site, but it is a dead link.
Thoughts? - SummerPhD ( talk) 17:51, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
There is currently a dispute Pearl S. Bucks alleged involvement the the Sixties Scoop. The content was repeatedly added by an IP/new user possibly in good faith but reverted by me and another editor due to insufficient sources. See the following edits for that.
The issue with the provided sources currently is that even their existence is not easy to verify and their reputation is unclear and whether they alone provide enough notability for the content to mentioned seems rather questionable as well (at least to me). As I want to avoid an edit war, I'd appreciate some other editors to asses sources and content. The sources in question from the 2 edits are:
Best comment on the article's talk page at Talk:Pearl_S._Buck#Sixties_Scoop to keep the discussion in one place. Thanks in advance.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 14:27, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
CoinDesk has been used as a source at the Bitcoin page. Recently, a user marked it as unreliable. The facts are:
Source: http://www.kotkalan.com/sports.html Article: Kabaddi Content: "General reliability"
Fellow Wikipedians, I am currently doing some copy editing of the Kabaddi article, and found this source, which I am considering data mining for some additional facts to flesh out the article. Before I do so, could you please let me know what you think of the source from a reliability pov?
Many thanks for any advice that you are able to give. - Ryk72 'c.s.n.s.' 04:30, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
I hadn't heard of this before seeing it being used (and removed) at Axact. It claims to have "professional editors, writers, columnists and reporters, hailing from Pakistan & from other parts of the world, along with those having years of journalistic experience". [10] However, its owner's blog says "We are famous Online news agency.We are working with honestly.If you want to publish your news or wants to publish your Brand contact us at humarinews@gmail.com" [11] which makes me wonder. This statement (warning?) in regard to anyone who thinks they are reprinting copyright material [12] doesn't encourage me. Looking at the front page, [13] most of the material seems to be written by the website's owner, Usama Abbasi, who seems to actually be a blogger, not a journalist. [14] See also its FB page [15] which shows its url as http://www.humarinews.blogspot.com/ which takes you to http://www.humarinews.com/ Dougweller ( talk) 08:58, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Would pages from http://www.dailyscript.com/index.html be considered to be reliable as sources? An editor has added this page from the website to cite information in Beetlejuice#"Beetlejuice" or "Betelgeuse". I cannot find anything about the website other than it is "a collection of movie scripts and screenplays to serve as a resource for writers and actors and those who simply enjoy reading movie scripts." I guess that means it is sort of a database for scripts and does not generate the content itself, right? Does that mean the script being cited is a primary source? Can it be used in this way if it is? FWIW, I think the edit that was made is not entirely correct and does not reflect what is said in the source. I just want to see if the source is reliable before fixing the bare url and fixing the text. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 21:56, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
I have a concern regarding usage of FILMIBEAT.COM (previously known as entertainment.oneindia.in, which redirects) as a source for WP:BLP articles. The content is poorly written and does not strike me as a source we should be incorporating into our encyclopedia.
For example, the Raadhika Sarathkumar article refers to this link as a source:
I am seeking community input as to whether or not we should be relying on this website for biographical texts. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 19:12, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
Press TV is the Iranian state television service. At Talk:United_Synagogue#Rewrite there is some discussion as to whether it can be relied upon as a reliable source related to criticism of a Jewish religious organisation ( United Synagogue) and its links with Zionism and Israel. I'd welcome input. -- Dweller ( talk) 10:00, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
User Maury Markowitz restored the following to W71 article: 'To take advantage of the range of soft x-rays in space, the Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory is reported to have designed or "tailored" the warhead's secondary with a gold liner, instead of the usual depleted uranium or lead, which maximized x-ray production'. The source given is the page http://www.johnstonsarchive.net/nuclear/multimeg.html from website 'Johnston's Archive'. This appears to be a self-published site and so unsuitable as a source. The give page in turn references Chuck Hansen's 1988 book U.S. Nuclear Weapons: The Secret History. I don't have access to this book, so I can't comment on its content. If this source supports the claim, then it should be quoted directly instead. - Crosbie 05:05, 19 May 2015 (UTC)
Fair enough. The basic rule for any collection source of this sort, SPS or not, is that the work contains quality references. Encyclopedia Astronautica is SPS, but is based on clearly indicated high quality cites, and is widely used here.
Looking at the site in question, I find two and a half pages of references for an article body about 6 pages long (excluding the TOC). Those references are widely used in articles here, including FA's. That said, I've only passed over them.
Do you have a specific reason for doubting this page as a source, other than it being SPS? Remember, SPS is not "self-published is bad", it's more like "self-published requires closer examination". I do not see that having taken place here. Maury Markowitz ( talk) 13:50, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
How reliable is politicalgraveyard.com for biographical information (non BLP)? Blueboar ( talk) 12:47, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
Looking at this site for use in an article. It seems well done and the editors appear to be knowledgeable and reasonably neutral. My concern is the perceived lack of editorial oversight. Any opinions? [16]. Niteshift36 ( talk) 14:34, 22 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm wanting use this website as a source but I'm uncertain of its reliability. I'm particularly wanting to use this story for a WP:BLP article. Could someone give me a heads up please? Thanks in advance. Slay A Bit ( talk) 01:19, 20 May 2015 (UTC)
Middayexpress is replacing an Economist article which says the Camden Somali Youth Development Resource Centre helped pupils to improve their exam results with a letter to a local paper from the centre chairman. Surely this is not independent of the source? http://www.economist.com/news/britain/21583710-somalis-fare-much-worse-other-immigrants-what-holds-them-back-road-long http://www.thecnj.com/camden/2008/030608/letters030608_02.html Talk:Somalis_in_the_United_Kingdom#Somali_Youth_Development_Resource_Centre BrumEduResearch ( talk) 19:24, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
I'm actually not insisting on the letter, though as the Chairman of the Somali Youth Development Resource Centre, its author is certainly very reliable on the functions of his organization. I think this ceremony link on the centre's annual awards is preferable. It was pointed out that that ceremony link only insinuates that the organization was credited with having helped to improve the exam results, which I suppose is true. However, the same could be said for the other link. It too doesn't assert outright that the organization helped to achieve this, only that that was its founding objective. Middayexpress ( talk) 16:00, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
The Temple of Olympian Zeus was used as an notable example of an ancient White elephant supported by this source [19]. The example was deleted Special:Diff/657763586/657830976 because according to the user Beeblebrox its source was weak, appearing to be the personal web page of a single college professor. However my argument which is also expressed in the talk page: Talk:White elephant is that for such a kind of white elephants the only sources can be found are pretty much coming form history professors, since in the ancient times the term "White Elephant" didn't exist, and in modern times the media and the journalists write articles only for the modern White Elephants, since nowadays the Temple of Olympian Zeus is more famous as a historical monument rather than as a White Elephant of its times. My view is that for various reasons this is a very significant and unique example with high encyclopedic value and should be restored in the article. Can therefore this source be used as a reliable source? Clicklander ( talk) 11:09, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
According to the wikipedia article: "..it is an object, scheme, business venture, facility, etc., considered without use or value.". The professor characterises the temple as "a white elephant that had been sitting half-finished for half a millennium". I do not see how he could mean something different than the definition given in the article by using that term. Clicklander ( talk) 13:34, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
I have found a PhD thesis that could potentially support some material at British Cypriots. Noting what WP:SCHOLARSHIP says about theses ("Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a PhD, and which are publicly available..., can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources"), I wanted to get advice here first. The thesis concerned is this one, and I want to draw on the material about tolerance on p. 2 to expand the paragraph at the end of the history section. The PhD was awarded by Sussex, a reputable university, and the author has since been appointed to a lectureship at Queen's University Belfast. Can I have other editors' thoughts on whether I should use this? Cordless Larry ( talk) 09:28, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Updating The 2010
Archive 84: A Report from February 2014 - Executive Chairman of Breitbart(dotcom) News, Stephen K. Bannon's announcement of Breitbart(dotcom)'s turn from an opinion website to a Global Syndication - The Breitbart organization connects Texas & current London-based operations. The extensions to Florida & California in the US, and development in Cairo, Egypt & Jerusalem. These offices are the beginning of an expansion that would add a new regional site (roughly) every 90 days.
_NYT Source
I'm taking into account this critique: "Breitbart is categorically not a RS, for very famous reasons
1,
2 regarding HIS (lack of) journalistic integrity. Sceptre 07:11, 19 December 2010 "
as well this current perspective, "Brietbart is not a reliable source because, wait for it, ...... JOURNALISTIC ETHICS!!!
3 -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:29, 26 May 2015"
A review of the presented "sourced materials";
1,
2, and
3 that seek to disqualify Breitbart(dotcom). Take notice that each criticism belongs to deceased blogger
Andrew Breitbart & his opinion website BigCompany, but not Breitbart(dotcom) itself ... These are inexact to BreitBart, The 2015 Global News Syndicate. Conclusively, if anyone sources the deceased journalist himself or his defunct blog, I concur, would validate "illegitimacy" - but today's Breitbart(dotcom) meets the distinctions of
a reliable source.
--
j0eg0d (
talk) 08:20, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Breitbart is a fast growing news organization. From their site: "Founded in 2005 by conservative icon Andrew Breitbart, Breitbart News Network is the biggest source of breaking news and analysis, thought-leading commentary, and original reporting curated and written specifically for the new generation of independent and conservative thinkers. Known for hard hitting, no holds-barred journalism along with world-class aggregation, Breitbart News is growing rapidly. The company recently added bureaus in London, Texas, and California, and is currently in the process of launching additional bureaus and verticals." It is a professionally managed news corporation that has been around for 10 years now. I suggest the opinions are reliable for their opinions, and their reporting is as reliable as other such entities (HuffPost, etc.) Capitalismojo ( talk) 18:54, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
Updating The 2010
Archive 84
Proposal of a Secondary Resolution: Apologies for any facetiousness, but this begs to question ... If Breitbart(dotcom) is the "unreliable source" founded by Community Consensus; Then this conclusion must demand Wikipedia to remove every source of Brietbart(dotcom) from every WIKI page that presents it as a RELIABLE source. How many articles is that(?) Do you imagine?
Masem,
BusterD,
TyTyMang,
Geni,
Capitalismojo,
JzG,
Arzel,
108.52.24.214 &
77.97.24.152
--
j0eg0d (
talk) 02:28, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Many of you are ignoring the obvious; These URL sources that refute reliability of Breitbart(dotcom) are FIRST alluding to Andrew Breitbart & his BigGovernment blog ... not Breitbart(dotcom) itself. Breitbart(dotcom) came after the BigGovernment blog - They aren't the same thing. SECONDLY the man Andrew Breitbart has been deceased for 3 years. He doesn't contribute to Breitbart(dotcom) or manage it's global syndication. My observation is recognizing political separations here; Breitbart(dotcom) certainly leans towards conservative views and it's understandable that liberal ideologies (Washington Post, NY Times, ETC) would argue "merit". Politics encourages this discourse, but it isn't Wikipedia's policy to pick sides. --
j0eg0d (
talk) 08:44, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Leaving aside the rather hysterical thread above, Law School Transparency actually does not appear to be a reliable source, and does appear to have been systematically added against Wikipedia guidelines. It's a campaigning website, in the end, and I'm not seeing much evidence that it is widely regarded as an authority of sufficient significance to be added to this many articles. Put simply, there is good reaosn to think that LST wants to (and does) use Wikipedia to promote its cause, and weak evidence if any at all that including its links improves our articles. Guy ( Help!) 16:25, 27 May 2015 (UTC)
References
References
There are quite a few YouTube links being cited as reiable sources in this article. They are not in English so I can't say for sure if they are acceptable as reliable sources per WP:RS. It's hard to tell if these are official YT news channels or simply videos uploaded by somebody connected to the groups. Some of the videos seem to have been removed from YT whicb might mean there were copyright issues. Regardless, the few I've watched seem to be statements made by various groups which might be a problem per WP:NOTSOAP. I am interested in hearing the opinions of others on this. Thanks in adavnce. - Marchjuly ( talk) 22:10, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
Is this article website a reliable source for the following statement made in the article for Diyarbakır.
According to a November 2006 survey by the Sur Municipality, one of Diyarbakır's metropolitan municipalities, 72% of the inhabitants of the municipality use Kurdish most often in their daily speech, followed by Turkish, with small minorities of Assyrians, Armenians and Yezidis still resident.
I am mainly interested in the accuracy of the 72% statistic as some editors are arguing that no one in Diyarbakır speaks Kurdish. A machine translation gives "What language most spoken in our daily lives we?' 72 percent of respondents to the question of Kurdish, 24 percent of Turkish" but it is difficult for me to evaluate the validity of the source as I do not speak Turkish, but I would like to know if this source is reliable. Thank you for your assistance. Winner 42 Talk to me! 02:16, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Can Tree-Ring Services be used to supplement architectural dating info provided by Historic England? The article in question is Denham, Buckinghamshire, and the text that this source is/was being used to support is "Analysis of a sample of timbers from the main building and its associated barn have found that they were felled in the winters of 1472/3 and 1473/4, indicating that the relevant parts of the building were erected in 1474 or soon after". Because this info is different to the dating given by Historic England, and because Tree-Ring Services is a commercial site that is advertising its service and I wasn't sure of its reliability, I removed the text and ref ( diff). There is a brief discussion, with extra detail from another editor ( Brixtonhill), here. PaleCloudedWhite ( talk) 07:02, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Ran into this group reading American Islamic Forum for Democracy trying to figure out who Timothy Furnish is. [23] Wondered if we had an article on it. We don't, but it's used quite a bit as a source. [24] In Muslims Against Crusades it's used as a source for statements about two living people. The source is [25] and is written by the editor. It starts "Forget notions of freedom of speech in Britain. Freedom of speech, if it does still exist in that Godforsaken country, is now subject to cultural relativism." I haven't looked any further yet, but that looks pretty dubious as a source. Doug Weller 14:30, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
I wanted to know whether Kirkus Reviews in general, and this one in particular, are considered reliable sources for the articles about the books they are reviewing (in this case, A Son Called Gabriel). Everymorning talk 17:58, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
A particular user has been going on adding the link called siskelandebert.com to various film related article's EL section. While being reverted the user edit wars and in one of the article, Madonna: Truth or Dare he left this message on the talk page. Can you guys help me out with the validity of these statements? — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 04:26, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
Please remove all links to siskelandebert.org -- thank you! Firstmagnitude — Preceding unsigned comment added by Firstmagnitude ( talk • contribs) 15:44, 1 June 2015 (UTC+9)
Hi,
I am submitting Robert Bateman's "No Gun Ri: A Military History of the Korean War Incident" for consideration. As of 2015, the book has been at the center of a very heated and prolonged debate on No Gun Ri Massacre, which has led to ban attempts and undoubtedly frightened off many editors. This book has been submitted previously here, but little input was given.
I would greatly appreciate any and all input by editors uninvolved in the NGR dispute.
GeneralizationsAreBad ( talk) 20:12, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
The book is published by Stackpole Books and has been well received. Some reviews:
Just adding some of the reviews. WeldNeck ( talk) 20:17, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
This source was previously considered at the RS noticeboard Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_153#No_Gun_Ri:_A_Military_History_of_the_Korean_War_Incident with an additional comment after archiving Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_154#No_Gun_Ri.2C_Bateman_book.-- Wikimedes ( talk) 08:43, 29 May 2015 (UTC)
As an outside observer who had not even heard of the No Gun Ri Massacre before this moment, i just spent half an hour reading this section, some of the reviews, and much of the talk page at the article itself. I see that this is a very contentious issue about interpretation and representation of reality on Wikipedia, where the reality itself is contested. There are passionate voices on both "sides" so we have a polarized conflict here. I think it is very important to listen carefully to the different voices, and to work to depolarize as much as possible among the editors, and to use sources that are not essentially aligned with one side or the other of the contested reality. When a source that is clearly on one "side" is used, then it should be framed as a controversial and contested source, and not used on the same level as another source that is not so contested. The article itself should describe the controversy about the incident as clearly and neutrally as possible, instead of pretending that there is no controversy over what occurred, with a behind-the-scenes tug-of-war constantly going on over the content. I think it's better to admit and describe a controversy in an article, than to engage in it within Wikipedia itself, when possible. My reading on Bateman's book is that it seems to have been written with an agenda, a desired outcome, and to have the smell of a cherry-picking biased piece of work, rather than someone coming to the incident and controversy with an open mind. Mind you, this is all based on reading several reviews and googling the book and author for 10 minutes. It's my outsider's bird's-eye-view. If any specific claim must be sourced to Bateman's book, i'd assume it's because it's not reported by any other source. I'd prefer that other sources be used in the article's claims, and that anything sourced solely to Bateman's book, if anything, be clearly attributed with a note on the controversial nature of the book and the apparent conflict of interest of the author of the book in relation to the subject matter. There's definitely serious contention about what happened in reality, here, and i think it's very important for the article to embody that, so that readers get the sense of the controversy. It's important for the article not to buy into one "side" of the controversy, and also for the relative weight of differing versions to be accurately represented, so that a fringe theory does not become central to the article if that is indeed the case, but so that valid critiques are not omitted either. I know, that's a tall order from an outside observer, and maybe it won't help much. I have been in a couple of heated debates about what to include in a congtroversial article, and from this, i know the importance of good dialogue, and having fair-minded outsiders providing some help or commentary, and i hope i may have helped. SageRad ( talk) 14:06, 1 June 2015 (UTC)
I came across the draft Draft:John Harrison Finger - Mr. Walk America, which had some issues with sourcing. There are a ton of sources, but none of them have any links. A lot of the coverage is from the 1940s through the 1980s, before the Internet really became a thing. If the sources can be verified in some format then that would help establish notability given the length of coverage over time. The article's creator, Walking High Point, is more than happy to e-mail us the articles but I don't know that this is really something that would solve the issue. Maybe they could upload them somewhere like a website? I know that sometimes we can use uploaded newspaper articles if they show the full newspaper information like this one does. I don't know if this is something WP:ORTS does, but maybe he could file a ticket with them verifying that the clippings are legit? There's got to be something we can do. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
Can I use this ( archive) source for supporting the claim that he was nominated for an award on the page List of roles and awards of Arshad Warsi, currently at FLC. Regards, -- Skr15081997 ( talk) 14:20, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
The Revisionismo (Revisionism) was the historiographical wing of Argentine Nacionalismo, which a political movement that appeared in Argentina in the 1920s. It was the Argentine equivalent of the authoritarian ideologies that arose during the same period, such as Nazism, Fascism and Integralism. Argentine Nationalism was an authoritarian, anti-Semitic, racist and misogynistic political movement.
A number of academics have examined Argentine revisionism and there are a number of peer reviewed works in the literature. See [26], [27], [28], [29], [30], [31] for example.
I would like to ask, as a generic discussion, whether these works are generically suitable as a WP:RS for the purposes of Wikipedia. They pose a particular problem for wikipedia, since they are published in the print media, which is normally something that we would consider reliable. We therefore have to rely upon what is published about their reliability. In general I would say they are not considered a wholly reliable source for material for Wikipedia. Below I set out why, with reference to views in academia.
Monica Rein (11 March 1998). Politics and Education in Argentina, 1946-1962. M.E. Sharpe. pp. 72–. ISBN 978-0-7656-4000-0. Notes that revisionism is associated with Far Right groups, was essentially about rewriting historical accounts to reflect a wholly positive view of the Spanish conquest of South America and to rehabilitate Caudillos (Spanish for dictator) as true heroes, whilst denouncing Liberals as traitors who had betrayed the nation. The movement is heavily linked to Peronism and its content driven by political considerations.
Michael Goebel (2011). Argentina's Partisan Past: Nationalism and the Politics of History. Liverpool University Press. pp. 6–. ISBN 978-1-84631-238-0. Goebel expresses a similar view and is particularly damning of the way in which revisionist historians have asserted that traditional historical works were the work of "traitors" using history as an "ideological weapon to prolong Argentina's ignominious debasement". Goebel is critical of the movement's lack of interest in scholarly standards.
Luis Alberto Romero (31 October 2013). A History of Argentina in the Twentieth Century: Updated and Revised Edition. Penn State Press. pp. 88–. ISBN 978-0-271-06410-9. Romero notes its origins in the authoritarian and antiliberal right wing ideologies such as that of Mussolini, its growth as an anti-British and anti-establishment movement and its attempts to vindicate the reputation of the Caudillos such as Rosas. Romero also demonstrates how its origins in far right groups became accepted in left wing groups and its association with Peronism which incorporates both left and right wing elements.
Jill Hedges (15 August 2011). Argentina: A Modern History. I.B.Tauris. pp. 85–. ISBN 978-1-84885-654-7. Hedges notes the role of rehabilitating the reputation of Rosas, is linked to the promotion of political authoritarianism and the role played by right wing groups absorbed into Peronism.
David Rock (1993). Authoritarian Argentina: The Nationalist Movement, Its History, and Its Impact. University of California Press. pp. 167–. ISBN 978-0-520-91724-8. Rock notes that the Revisionist movement roots in anti-semitism and anti-Protestantism, with Rosas being promoted as the ideal of an authoritarian figures and the promotion of authoritarianism over liberal democracy. Quoting Palacios, one of the early figures "The primary obligation of the Argentine intelligentsia is to glorify ... the great caudillo who decided our destiny".
Nicolas Shumway (26 May 1991). The Invention of Argentina. University of California Press. pp. 220–. ISBN 978-0-520-91385-1. Shumway notes that the movement calls for an "alternate history" and that revisionist history has become a chief rallying cry for Argentine nationalism in the 20th Century.
The Argentine revisionist movement is not a reliable source for content in general, since as Goebel notes scholastic standards are lacking and it has rejected historical orthodoxy to promote political ideologies. The main role of the revisionist movement is to rehabilitate the reputation of authoritarian leaders from Argentina's past, with the aim of promoting strong and authoritarian leadership in modern Argentina. It is not accepted as reliable in academia, since their purpose is to promote a wholly positive view of authoritarianism.
As they lack scholastic standards, their use for content is a problem for wikipedia. As they promote a political orthodoxy, their views depart radically from the mainstream academic view and in that respect they could be very much classified as WP:FRINGE. I would suggest their main use would be as sources of revisionist thought but as they lack scholastic standards, unreliable for historical fact. W C M email 19:07, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a noobie here and I have a question about primary vs secondary sources. I've read the guidelines at WP:SECONDARY but I need some guidance on this question. There is an ongoing study carried out by University of Auckland called New Zealand Attitudes and Values Study. They have published results of the survey (as far as I can this was peer reviewed and carried out by highly qualified researchers), you can see on an example here [1].
1. Would you consider the link directly to University of Auckland's results to be a primary or secondary source? To my thinking, the primary source is the raw survey data and this interpretation of the data is a secondary source. Would anyone care to comment on this.
2. To cite a reference in Wikipedia, would you prefer a link to the University page (which reads more like a press release that an academic journal to me) or to a national newspaper which has largely copy/pasted what the University wrote.
Thanks for your time. 101.98.220.113 ( talk) 04:16, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
References
A self-published website, http://tsort.info, is being used in 54 of our music articles. [32] The website compiles statistics about songs, albums and artists. Is it reliable?
A typical appearance of this reference is at " Creole Love Call". The article text says that the song "entered the Billboard USA song charts in 1928 at No. 19." [33] The named source is Billboard magazine, so this should be verifiable, if someone had the 1928 back issues. They are not scanned and hosted online yet.
Another typical appearance is at Sheryl Crow's "All I Wanna Do" where the website is used to say that the song peaked at number 5 in Japan and number 15 in Poland. [34] No sources are cited.
The website owner is Steve Hawtin, who describes himself as an obsessive "computer person" with experience in information architecture. No professional connection to the music industry. Binksternet ( talk) 17:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
1. Source: http://www.cuny.tv/highlight/sp2000039 (12 min segment covering zeitgeist)
2. Article: Zeitgeist (film series)
3. Content: Factual claims from the reporter/graduate student, Andrew Falzon.
At first I only saw the vimeo linked segment and although it was well done, I thought this piece was a spoof. Upon further digging, I found the CUNY TV link hosting the full 1 hour special and stating:
It's a very unique situation produced by graduate students with apparent professional editorial oversight and jointly produced by CBS News. I want to use it for the 12 min segment covering the zeitgeist movement and films. I'm leaning toward it being reliable now, but it is such an unusual situation. What does the community think? Thanks. OnlyInYourMind T 03:35, 3 June 2015 (UTC) Updated OnlyInYourMind T 19:18, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
These two websites have recently been used to source information about American Public University System. Thoughts? -- JBL ( talk) 20:16, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
Mary Cawkell (2001). The History of the Falkland Islands. Anthony Nelson. ISBN 978-0-904614-55-8.
Mary Cawkell (1983). The Falkland Story, 1592-1982. A. Nelson. ISBN 978-0-904614-08-4.
M. B. R. Cawkell (1960). The Falkland Islands: By M.B.R. Cawkell, D. H. Maling and E. M. Cawkell. Macmillan.
Mary Cawkell is a British historian who has written a number of books about the Falkland Islands.
Her first book, published in 1960 by Macmillan, [35], a publishing house noted for producing science and education texts.
Her later works, were published by Anthony Nelson, as a publisher they appear to be now defunct. However, [36] a search on AbeBooks shows mainly academic works.
Mary Cawkell died in 2001, whilst her last book was being published. Her obituary [37] noted:
“ | Mary Cawkell was born in Wigtown, Scotland in 1907. She remained there until her early 20s when she moved to Africa, travelling extensively in both South Africa and Zimbabwe. During the war she worked in the Lebanon where she met her husband. After the war her husband joined the Colonial Service and was posted to the Falklands as Superintendent of Education. She and her family first went to the Falklands at the beginning of the 1950s and lived there for seven years. This was a start of a lifelong interest in, and affection for, the Islands. Mary became a respected author on the Falklands which provided her with endless material for many articles and broadcasts covering all aspects of life there, from past to present and from peat to penguins. The extensive research she had done led her to writing the authoritative standard history of the Islands, The Falkland Islands, published in 1960. Later a shorter book The Falklands Story 1592-1982 based on additional material, concisely covered the story of the Falklands until the Argentinean invasion. From the Falklands the family moved to West Africa, to The Gambia where Mary continued with her journalism. After she returned to England she carried on with travelling and writing, spending time in eastern communist countries then little visited. In her later years she lived in Sussex and worked on updating her history of the Falklands. | ” |
She is quoted in the Bibliography of virtually every book that has been written on the Falkland Islands [38] of all nationalities. Its widely used on wikipedia Falkland Islands, History of the Falkland Islands, Luis Vernet, Matthew Brisbane, Antonina Roxa to name but a few.
As an author and published works, I have not seen any secondary source criticise her work for inaccuracy.
I now have an Argentine editor, asserting this work is unreliable. His reasons include:
1. "Her book was published with the support of the British Government, in fact Sir Rex Hunt wrote its foreword."
This is untrue, it had no support from the British Government, Sir Rex Hunt wrote the foreword as a private individual following his retirement.
2. "I realized Mary Cawkell was an amateur local historian, an therefore to be used with care."
In fact, a professional journalist, who happened to specialise on Falklands history due to a personal connection.
3. Talk:History of the Falkland Islands#Recent Revert a long and tortuous comment but basically alleging differences between her 1960 work and 2001 edition mean her work is "amateurish" and "unreliable".
The facts in both works are consistent, but whilst the 1960 edition focused on Luis Vernet the 2001 edition focused more on Lt Smith (a work in progress in my sandpit). However, it would not be unusual for a later work to included updated information based on later research and even if there were a conflict (there isn't) that is not reason to infer those conclusions.
I have to note that there is nationalist motive usually in these claims, since he is attempting to assert Mary Cawkell to be unreliable, remove cites and then declare the work to be uncited and on that basis remove certain information it seems he considers detrimental to Argentina's sovereignty claim. Example, he wishes to remove any mention of Luis Vernet's dealing with the British after 1833. See History of the Falkland Islands#British colonisation.
I am tired of this constant and endless argumentation based on criticism by speculation and the personal opinions of this editor. I would simply like to get on with the works in my sandpit. Whilst I have no wish to drag others into this but I would be grateful if any editors who feel able to comment, would confirm that by any standard applied to sources on wikipedia this is reliable. W C M email 18:40, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
IMHO, there are three issues here:
And this is only English literature! There is no mention in Spanish literature either.
Last but not least, there is no mention to some "British permission" in:
Yeah... you read that right Foreign Affairs Committee, House of Commons.
In sum, the absence of references to a permission in British Government documents and academic literature is the key element here. This is an obsession of British hardliner nationalists and is ignore by... well... the rest of the word, including all British academics and diplomats!
Evidence is overwhelming. This is not even WP:FRINGE.
Regards -- ProfesorFavalli ( talk) 02:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)