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 189 | Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | → | Archive 195 |
Over the last two months a large number of edits have been made to dozens, possibly hundreds of articles about law schools. Almost all the edits follow the exact same format and appear to originate from a single commercial organization " Law School Transparency", inserting links to its website into specific law school articles. LST seeks to monetize data that is available for free elsewhere, and often introduces errors into the data in the process.
There are slight variations in the edits for some law schools--for example, some note the overall employment rate for law students and not just the "Full Time JD required not solo" category invented by LST. The more favorable edits appear to be for law schools who have paid LST for its services or otherwise provided financial support to the organization.
Someone (apparently from LST) has inserted LST metrics into most law school's websites without any prior discussion of whether or not LST is a reliable source of information.
Law School Transparency or related parties have been paying individuals to insert links into Wikipedia pages and coordinating off Wikipedia. [1] I provided a reference to a thread on the website, top-law-schools.com, in which entry into a raffle with "fabulous prizes" was offered to individuals who would edit law school wikipedia pages by inserting links to LST's website. [2] [3] Individuals also pledged to defend LST and defend the edits if anyone tried to change them. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Individuals from LST participated in these discussions, egging people on and providing suggestions, and thanking them for boosting traffic to LST's website. [9] [10] [11] LST also encouraged them to use LST visuals on Wikipedia. [12] These payments and off-wiki-coordination were not disclosed on Wikipedia at the time of the edits.
"Fabulous prizes" appears in scare quotes and is a direct quotation to the blog post on top-law-schools.com from the individuals soliciting the links in Wikipedia to LST. The phrase appears repeatedly and is emphasized, for example by appearing in all caps in large purple font. The actual prizes were raffles for $10 gift cards. I don't think the specific denominations are what matters. It demonstrates a pattern of abuse. One individual who participated in the raffle was so highly motivated he edited dozens of law school web pages.
If you look at older top-law-schools posts by the Law School Transparency individual egging people on, this person discloses that he is a recent graduate of Vanderbilt law school, which matches up with the biographies of several of the leading figures in Law School Transparency. The fellow starting the contest appears to be a recent NYU graduate living in NY, which matches up with the biography of another leading figure in Law School Transparency. If LST is this bold on a public message board that anyone can read, can you imagine what they might be doing in their private communications? Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 06:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
On the top-law-schools message board, several individuals noticed that LST's employment figures for several schools were systematically lower than those they calculated independently from the ABA data and suggested this was an error. [13] [14] They were told to ask LST for direction. [15] [16] LST explained that this is because they subtract out individuals who are employed full time in JD-required jobs if they are practicing law as a solo-practitioner. [17] There is no peer-reviewed scientifically validated justification for doing this since individuals who are self employed are employed under both ABA and U.S. Government definitions--as are individuals who are employed in non-JD required or part time jobs. Someone asked if they should include more granular information and another person said no, because more detail would be "confusing" and other metrics, such as combining some employment categories with the employment category, would more simply convey LST's message that the employment figures are terrible.. [18] So LST is against providing all the data--the overall employment rate using the standard definition of employment--and against providing the most granular data--all of the employment categories and subcategories. They pick and chose to try to make things look as bad as possible.
You can also see this in how debt or cost of living figures were handled. When LST and a more reliable source came up with very different numbers, the LST paid/coordinated editor went with the LST number since it was larger. [19]
For debt, they suggested using accelerated 10 year monthly payments rather than the much lower monthly payments available over common 30 year repayments or through income contingent or income based repayment over 10 to 20 years. [20]
LST and its gang of coordinating/ paid editors also appear to have explicitly targeted non-elite law schools (which they call "toilets" [21] [22] [23] or TTT (third tier toilets), [24] leaving elite law schools wikipedia pages intact. [25] They decided to go after William and Mary specifically because it funds jobs for its students. [26] The goal does not appear to be to provide the most accurate information about law schools generally, but rather to attack specific law schools. Later in the discussion someone suggests that they should add the elite law schools just so that it doesn't look like they are targeting specific law schools, since that might lead to deletion of their comments! [27]
LST coordinated/paid editors also appear to have been tempted to delete positive material about law schools, but were unsure how far they could push the envelope. [28] [29] [30] [31]
They also tried to place negative material about law schools in as prominent a position as possible, and described positive material as "dumb as shit" [32] or "PR crap." [33]They said their goal was to "neutralize" U.S. News specialty rankings with unflattering depictions of employment data. [34]
One of LST's editors joked that he would be right back because he was "vandalizing" UT Austin's website. [35] Another described law schools as "vultures" [36]
The individual from LST (apparently Kyle McEntee) noted that he was shopping a story to the press to try to drive down enrollment in North Carolina. [37]
One of LSTs paid/coordinated editors noted that ABA data was a good replacement for LST data. [38] Another had serious doubts about whether adding links to LST added any legitimacy, since it was all based on more reliable underlying ABA data. Someone from LST responded by insisiting that links to LST and LST metrics must be included, along with their "algorithm" for inflating debt figures. [39]
When disputes arose about specific pages, the LST group used the top law schools.com message board to get LST friendly voices to chime in to support LST in these disputes. [40] This happened in particular with the LST editors were called out on Wikipedia for bias. [41] [42] I believe this is called gaming the system and is frowned upon under Wikipedia policy.
LST offered to write a script that would autogenerate text to insert in Wikipedia. [43]
Law School Transparency was founded in July 2009 by two class of 2008 law students at Vanderbilt University Law School, Kyle McEntee and Patrick J. Lynch. LST was initially funded through a Vanderbilt program to support non-profit jobs for Vanderbilt graduates who could not otherwise obtain employment. [44] When Lynch obtained a job practicing environmental law with a nongovernmental organization in South America, he reduced his involvement in LST. [45] Lynch was replaced by Derek Tokaz, a graduate of NYU Law school who blogs for the rightwing legal humor website Constitutional Daily and who pursued a Masters of Fine Arts at American University after completing law school. [46] [47] From the outset, one of the greatest challenges LST faced was securing funding and resources. [48]
"Law School Transparency is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit advocacy organization. 'LST was founded by Vanderbilt Law School class of 2008 graduates Kyle McEntee and Patrick Lynch after LST's founders were unable to secure more attractive legal employment. From the outset, one of the greatest challenges LST faced was securing funding and resources. [49] LST describes its own mission as "to make entry to the legal profession more transparent, affordable, and fair." [50] LST accuses law schools of presenting misleading data and other misdeeds, and demands payment from law schools to certify that their employment information is accurate. Critics have compared this practice to extortion. [51] [52]
The head of law school transparency, Kyle McEntee was quoted in the Washington Post saying “Law school is not a ticket to financial security . . . There’s just no evidence that the people starting school now are going to end up okay, and to me that’s really concerning.” [53] However, the Washington Post reported that there was substantial evidence of positive financial outcomes for most law graduates. McEntee also criticized the New York Times for positive press coverage of legal education and the legal profession, [54] [55] although others have suggested that that New York Times story was factually accurate and used data appropriately. [56] LST's data clearinghouse contains numerous errors. [57]
There have been numerous critiques against LST and its founders, including unethical practices that critics say resemble extortion, inaccuracies in LST data, selective and misleading presentation of data, and anti-law school bias. LST has been criticized for a lack of transparency about its own sources and uses of funds and for alleged irregularities in its dealings with the Internal Revenue Service.
LST accuses law schools of presenting misleading data and other misdeeds, and demands payment from law schools to certify that their employment information is accurate. Critics have compared this practice to extortion. [58] [59]
The head of law school transparency, Kyle McEntee was quoted in the Washington Post saying “Law school is not a ticket to financial security . . . There’s just no evidence that the people starting school now are going to end up okay, and to me that’s really concerning.” [60] However, the Washington Post reported that there was substantial evidence of positive financial outcomes for most law graduates. McEntee also criticized the New York Times for positive press coverage of legal education and the legal profession, [61] [62] although others have suggested that that New York Times story was factually accurate and used data appropriately. [63] McEntee earlier argued that law schools should cut enrollment 50 percent, [64] and explained that his goal was to drive down the price of law school. [65]
Kyle McEntee responded to peer reviewed research by professional labor economists showing that the overwhelming majority of law graduates benefit financially from their degrees and can afford to successfully repay their loans [66] by saying that the research "missed the point." [67] McEntee also accused law schools of being "immoral" and said that law students should be "frightened." [68]
Kyle McEntee and Law school Transparency have publicly backed class action lawsuits against New York area law schools for allegedly misleading employment data. [69] These suits were dismissed on the merits by multiple New York courts as having no legal merit or basis. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] The suits were also dismissed on appeal. [75] LST and Kyle McEntee have not disclosed the nature of their relationship, if any with the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' attorneys in these lawsuits. [76]
In other words, the courts have considered LST's claims that law school data is misleading and have rejected them. Having lost in court LST is now forum shopping to Wikipedia. Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 19:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
According to University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of Chicago's Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values, LST co-founder Derek Tokaz has engaged in cyber-harassment of individual law professors. [77]
Inline source, reliable source, neutral POV, this now complies with BLP policy. If Leiter's claims are disputed by Mr. Tokaz, let that be added to the entry.
Tokaz has also harassed individual law professors on his website, Constitutional Daily, referring to them as "Professor Ass Dean of Admissions", saying they "give zero fucks", accusing them of trying to raise tuition, using "extremely dubious facts", being "butt-hurt", "just making stuff up", being "the most misguided in legal education", being "wrong about everything", and suggesting they should be fired from their jobs. [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]
LST's data clearinghouse contains numerous errors. [87]
LST is not transparent about its funding sources or uses of funds, and did not file paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service that is required for its donors to receive a tax deduction until after this omission was pointed out by a critic. [88]As a result, many early donors were ineligible for tax deductions which they believed they were entitled to at the time of their donations. [89] This also raises questions about whether the founders of LST, who received a non-profit grant from Vanderbilt Law School to support their early work, violated the terms of the grant because LST was not properly incorporated at the time as a non-profit.
The organization appears to be funded in part by individuals providing career placement services to former law students, and to operate by scaring them into thinking they won't be able to find a job without such services. [90]
LST uses non-standard definitions of employment and unemployment that make law school data non-comparable to widely used employment and unemployment data from almost every other source. [91] In addition, peer reviewed studies by professional social scientists find that the starting salary data on which LST relies is not predictive of long term subsequent outcomes which are more important to the value of legal education--i.e., LST's methodology has no scientific validity. [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]
Crossposting this from the Spam Noticeboard.
Hundreds of Law School Websites have been the target of undisclosed paid editing, coordinated off-Wiki.. On July 9, 2014, on the message board top-law-school.com, a user going by the name of BRUT (who had been a user since 2011 and has posted on top-law-schools.com more than 270 times; top-law-schools registration required to see BRUT's past posts) declared the completion of a project offering a bounty to those who would insert links to Law School Transparency's website (entry into a raffle with the potential win of $10) into the Wikipedia page of ABA accredited law schools. [101] This was a coordinated effort, with individuals stating which website they edited, and BRUT keeping track to avoid duplication of effort. This conflict of interest was not disclosed on Wikipedia when the edits were made. This violates Wikipedia's paid editing policies and policies against off-wiki coordination.
Someone from Law School transparency posted specifically requesting a link to LST's website and thanking for the effort, noting that the links were helping drive traffic to LST's website. The full text from the first page of the top-law-schools.com thread is provided on the spam noticeboard.
It's unclear how many Wikipedia editors were compromised, but there are 13 pages of posts on the top-law-schools.com thread announcing the raffle. Many of the editors posting here to defend LST may have been compromised by payments from LST, Spivey Cosulting, or affiliated individuals or organizations. I would request that everyone defending LST as a reliable source disclose whether or not they have any connection whatsoever to Spivey, LST, top-law-schools.com, or related individuals or entities.
And yes, someone from LST disclosed that they were editing some of the law school websites themselves. [102]
References
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern ( talk • contribs)
The basic point is that citing LST adds nothing to the conversation, since all of the underlying data is available for free from the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education, without any advertisements or pleas for donations. LST has nothing to offer that the ABA is not providing already, and is clearly a *less* reliable source than the American Bar Association.
So why don't we all agree to take all of the LST references and editorializing by LST out of the articles and replace it with Neutral citations to the underlying ABA data, without any commentary, and without creating artificial categories of employment favored by LST. Just say what the overall employment rate is across categories, and then provide a breakdown of each ABA category without any attempt to group the categories together.
That is the most reasonable, fair, neutral and non-commercial approach to resolving this issue. Any debt level references should cite to ABA data or NALP data, not LST "estimates" and should include information on student loan default rates, where available, and typical monthly payments. We should not cite U.S. News--which is a commercial paid website--unless the data is not already available for free from the ABA. Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 22:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
References
This has been going for a couple of days, and there don't seem to be any more substantive comments or any additional evidence presented to support LST as a reliable source. Under the circumstances, I think the consensus view can be summarized as follows:
Therefore, no harm would be done to Wikipedia--and the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedic provider of unbiased information relying on the best and most reliable sources would be enhanced--if all citations to LST data were removed from all law school pages and replaced with a reference to the availability of the same or similar information available for free from the American Bar Association or the National Association for Law Placement. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources sets forth a definitive hierarchy with academic and peer-reviewed sources on top, news sources below, and ecommerce and opinionated sources like LST either prohibited or on the very lowest rung of reliability. There is no special "law school" exception to this policy. Nevertheless, many of the sources critical of LST are not law professors, but rather economists, education experts, journalists and statisticians based at other organizations such as colleges or arts & sciences, independent research organizations, and business schools. Your comments about bias of all law professors everywhere are not valid under Wikipedia's reliable source policy, but they do provide useful information about your own biases and prejudices and confirm that we have reached consensus on the merits under the official Wikipedia reliable source policy.
Under Wikipedia reliable source policy, news reports are suspect and should be replaced with academic sources whenever possible:
Wikipedia also frowns on excessive focus on recent events (such as short term outcomes for the most recent graduating class) rather than longer term historical norms (such as data available in "After the JD" or the peer reviewed academic work of Simkovic & McIntyre.
Ecommerce sources such as LST, which exist to sell the services of Spivey consulting (where McEntee and Spivey work), are not reliable sources and should not be cited except for deminimis information such as confirmation of the title of a book or movie:
Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 17:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Spammy messages about Spivey consulting started appearing on Top-Law-Schools.com about the same time as all of the Wikipedia edits citing to Law School Transparency's website. [1]
One indicator of the reliability of a source, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, is whether accepted reliable sources cite it as a reliable source. Law School Transparency has been cited regularly in the reputable mainstream press.
the Law School Transparency Data Clearinghouse lists 67 schools (out of the 185 that were scored) with full-time legal employment rates below 55 percent. At the same time, law school tuition and student debt have skyrocketed. The average 2011 law graduate from Syracuse owes $132,993, not including any debt incurred for undergraduate education. At Pace, the figure is $139,007; at New York Law School, $146,230.
At some schools, less than a third of their graduating class were obtaining long-term, full-time legal jobs.
Law School Transparency ranked the S.J. Quinney College among the top 20 most transparent law schools for the data it publishes about its students' career placement records.
In 2011, tuition for private law schools was 2.5 times what it cost in 1985, after adjusting for inflation
Students can't make an informed choice about their return on investment if they can't tell from a school's rankings how many of its jobs are permanent and how many are temporary.
In 2012, [Law School Transparency] successfully pressured the American Bar Association to require that law schools disclose more detailed surveys about post-graduation employment ... While law schools previously informed prospective students how often graduates landed jobs, today's statistics tell applicants whether those jobs are full-time or part-time, long-term or short-term, and whether the position required passing a state bar exam. In other words, beginning in 2012, prospective students can see which law schools launched the most attorney careers within nine months of graduation.
In an analysis by a publication called Law School Transparency, the law school class of 2013 was the largest ever at just under 47,000 graduates nationwide. That class was kicked out into a frigid job market that saw about 26,000 of them find full-time career path jobs in the legal profession.
[Yackee's methodology uses the] law school's Law School Transparency "Employment Score," which "measures the percent of recent graduates obtaining full time employment, within nine months of graduation, for which a JD degree and bar passage are required."
Overall, nearly 85 percent of law graduates have taken out student loans, according to the website Law School Transparency, and 2010 law graduates accumulated debt averaging $77,364 at public law schools and $112,007 at private ones.
Worldbruce ( talk) 11:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
See also the text of Wikipedia's reliable source policy on outside usage, which states that this is only a secondary indicator of reliability, other parts of the reliable source policy trump, and minority and controversial views like LST should not be given undue weight: "Usage by other sources Widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."
The only evidence presented for reliability of LST does not have much weight under the most generous interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 17:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
References
Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Look at the edit history for Law School Transparency's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Law_School_Transparency&action=history
Many of the same names and IP addresses appearing there can be found editing articles about specific law schools or attacking specific law professors. These include many of the individuals on this page insisting that LST is a reliable source! https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3AContributions&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Brut101010+&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Epeefleche&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150523095452&limit=100&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Epeefleche&namespace=
Epeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663725919&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663826565&oldid=663635214 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663712714&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ABA_Journal&type=revision&diff=663728099&oldid=643625305 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis&type=revision&diff=663728236&oldid=652907416 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663725721&oldid=663714656 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=University_of_Chicago&type=revision&diff=663727449&oldid=662822725
This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Avoid_repeated_arguments /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sour_grapes /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Civility Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
That editor has now repeatedly deleted appropriate RS-sourced edits I made (while for example including an opinion piece as an RS), the latest here. On the claimed and false and baseless assertion (in part) that I have a COI here. I have none.
And I have further concerns about the editor's possible COI, as reflected here. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I am writing with regard to the article Reynolds and Reynolds in response to a view held by User:206.180.44.25 that a particular line in the article should be removed.
The content concerned is as follows:
A 2008 report by the employer rating site Glassdoor ranked Reynolds and Reynolds the third lowest rated company based on employee satisfaction.
The source used is [2]
His view is apparently based on the help provided at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#Glassdoor.com which suggested that Glasshouse.com does not serve as a reliable source. My interpretation is any public-edible content on Glassdoor.com cannot be used as a reliable source. In this case, however, the source made use of a collation of content from Glasshouse.com as a large scale analysis, is published by the official Glassdoor.com team and cannot be edited by the public. The statement is also factually correct and well supported by the source. As such in this case, it should be treated as a reliable source.
As the user is unable to agree with me on this ( [3]) and continue to revert my attempts of reverting his edits to remove the line ( [4]), I would appreciate if somebody should offer some help with that regard.
- Andrew Y talk 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
so, about this. How do folks feel about the sourcing of that image which that page says is: "Image taken from a page by Yoshino Hideo (Chiba prefectural assembly member in Japan), [5] but original image is from Goro Nakamura's book: Vietnam War Agent Orange, p. 119". Jytdog ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The image is at File:JADE HELM LOGO.png and links to [6]. At Talk:Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories it's also been suggested that we can use a homemade video of a local council as a source. This may all of course be accurate, but I think we need much better sources. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Are scifi-universe.com and krinein.fr reliable sources? -- Cattus talk 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
http://prabook.org, specifically
http://prabook.org/web/person-view.html?profileId=916725
2. Article.
Vincent Bugliosi
3. Content (a). "Bugliosi was born on August 18, 1934 in Hibbing, Minnesota, the son of Italian immigrants, Aida Valeri (Sassoferrato, Marche, Italy) and Vincenzino Bugliosi (Costacciaro, Umbria, Italy)."
4. Content (b). The above was
recently changed from: "Bugliosi was born on August 18, 1934 in Hibbing, Minnesota, the son of Italian immigrants, Ida (Valerie) and Vincent Bugliosi."
I am not familiar with this website, but the about page suggests it may be another wiki. Bringing it here for additional opinions. - Location ( talk) 15:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Source Book: Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay 1579, Setting the Historical Record Straight by Garry D. Gitzen, Fort Nehalem Publishing, 263 pages, 8 1/2 by 11 inches, 100 plus illustrations, 6 Appendices, more than 90 bibliography items, and 9 plus pages of end notes. [9]. [10]. [11].
Source Article: Edward Wright’s World Chart of 1599 by Garry D. Gitzen, Terrae Incognitae, Vol. 46 No. 1, April 2014, 3–15. [12]
Source Review: Terrae Incognitae Editor Marguerite Ragnow, Ph.D. review of Edward Wright's World Chart of 1599 by G. Gitzen. [13] Ggitzen ( talk) 15:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Alfie Deyes is a well-known British YouTube celebrity. He has authored two books and hosted a show on BBC Radio 1. Numerous editors have sought to add his birthdate to his article, initially unsourced but accurate. It is virtually unheard of for sources to be required for birthdates. However, per WP:ABOUTSELF social media sites can be used for basic, unquestionable facts. Therefore, I used a YouTube video by the subject, 'Draw my Life' in which Deyes stats his birthday as 17th September 1993. User:Nikthestunned reverted my edits has cited WP:BLPPRIVACY to argue such material should not be included in the article, despite BLPPRIVACY stating 'Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.' It is clear Deyes does not object, because he stated his birthdate with his own mouth! The editor has also claimed the video is not a reliable source and that the birthday information is unreliable because it could be a lie. The same has occurred regarding Joe Sugg. Could other editors give their opinions on this matter AusLondonder ( talk) 13:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Lex Kogan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article contains a number of medical claims about ibogaine sourced to non-medical literature, as well as claims about living people and some borderline advertising. Any thoughts about how best to approach this one? The article was also deleted about 2 years ago, so if admin could check to see if this is a substantial copy that would be helpful. VQuakr ( talk) 03:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if this will be picked up, but, here goes ! Item on Saigon Post Office :- states - ".. which was built in early 20th.century..." WRONG ! I was in the building 1st.March 2015. It states there on the walls that it was built between 1886 and 1891. That's late 19th.century.
When contact changes minds ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd appreciate some advice regarding a Wikipedia article about a researcher (LaCour) who recently falsified data for a social science paper.
Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered...." Accordingly, I inserted the following sentence into the article When contact changes minds:
“ | Various opinions and theories have been advanced as to why
Science published the flawed article by LaCour and Green, why LaCour falsified the data, and how such conduct is perceived.[1][2][3][4][5] [1]Singal, Jesse. "Is Social Science a Giant Liberal Conspiracy?", New York Magazine (June 8, 2015). [2] ""Scientific Fraud and Politics"". Wall Street Journal. New York, NY. June 6, 2015. [3]Gambino, Lauren and Devlin, Hannah. "Study of attitudes to same-sex marriage retracted over 'fake data'", The Guardian (May 20, 2015). [4]Foster, Drew. "Will Academia Waste the Michael LaCour Scandal?", New York Magazine (June 5, 2015). [5]Cupp, S.E. "Key to changing hearts and minds on gay marriage: Don’t lie or bully", Seattle Times (May 25, 2014). |
” |
This was reverted on the grounds that "There seems to be agreement that these sources are making political hay from little or no information about the actual incident." Accordingly, there is presently no way that any of these sources can be used in this article in any way whatsoever, either to support a brief and general statement (as quoted above), much less a more detailed statement. Is this exclusion consistent with the policy?
In case anyone wants more detail (feel free to skip this): I'll briefly summarize what these five sources say for purposes of this noticeboard. According to [1], there is no evidence that Science has any liberal bias, and "LaCour and Green’s study was clearly published simply because it ran counter to so much prior research showing that it's really difficult to change people's political views (and it didn't hurt that Green's name was on it, given how respected he is in the field)." Thus, [1] is in opposition to [2] which says that LaCour's argument originally gained acceptance in the scientific community because it "flattered the ideological sensibilities of liberals, who tend to believe that resistance to gay marriage can only be the artifact of ignorance or prejudice, not moral or religious conviction." As to what motivated LaCour's dishonesty in the first place, his co-author, Donald Green, has expressed bafflement about any instance of scientific fraud, per [3]. However, [4] points to the pressure that social scientists are under to publish scholarly articles, although "profound pressure to publish certainly can’t explain LaCour’s deception on its own". In [5], pro-gay-marriage columnist S.E. Cupp writes that, "The doctored study will only encourage the perception that advocates are going too far." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Suggest in references "Aldershot in the Great War" published by Pen and Sword author Murray Rowlands be added. ISBN 978 1 78303 202 6 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum published in 2015 be added to the bibliography.
This polemical book, by the "prolific science fiction and fantasy writer" John Grant (author), is in use as a source for negative information regarding the BLP Anthony Watts (blogger), and also his blog, Watts Up With That? . I raised the question of why this author is a credible source, since he doesn't seem to have any particular expertise on the topic, at the Watts BLP talk page. You may read the replies, but in essence, the substantial reply was, "Take it to RS/N."
So: why should the opinion of this SF/F writer, who occasionally writes popular science, be reliable for anything but his personal opinions? Thanks, Pete Tillman ( talk) 21:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Grant, John (2011).
Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. Prometheus Books.
ISBN
1616144009. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 21:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
For use in the article on Entropy Estimation.
This source is a dissertation from Duke University: http://gradworks.umi.com/33/98/3398410.html and http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/2458 . It contains an analytic solution to the expected self-entropy of a distribution whose conjugate prior is a Dirichlet distribution. It is the only publication I've ever seen that provides an analytic solution to that problem, which is of course a very important problem for Machine Learning. Content hasn't been added yet, but the core content of interest is:
I read over a little but the part in WP:RS on scholarly sources, and it seems this remains ambiguous, given it's importance for Machine Learning, and the lack of any other source for an analytic solution. Kevin Baas talk 21:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG says, "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals...". So is Travis Walter Donovan a professional?
So is this writer a professional? Can this source be used "with caution" per WP:NEWSBLOG? OnlyInYourMind T 18:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@ OnlyInYourMind: a possible interpretation is that you outsmarted us all with your misreading of WP:NEWSBLOG (I'd happily concede to that), however: this didn't bring you any closer to a permission for using a questionable source. Your contentions approach absurdity ("The reason I don't specify a claim is because I think they are all equal" – yeah, sure, like that's how an encyclopedia works: our standard MO is to summarize sources, which always implies making choices of what is left out of the summary – if "all claims are equal" it is not even possible to make a summary). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@TenOfAllTrades: The reason I don't specify a claim is because I think they are all equal. There is an author and a list of claims. None of the claims are anymore outlandish than any other. Just lecture summaries, membership numbers, statistics, locations, dates, etc. To me, it seemed the important thing was determining if this writer was a professional or not, so WP:NEWSBLOG could be applied. If we can't apply WP:NEWBLOG then specifying a claim would be a waste of time. OnlyInYourMind T 12:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Book
The author claims that the above serial killer is responsible for all of the following:
This is the tip of the iceberg as Cameron concludes that Edwards killed more than 100 people, and was responsible for more than 15 wrongful convictions. Please read the second paragraph under section Other possible murders.
It is my contention that this is an
unreliable source and Wikipedia should not allow its inclusion based on the extreme
fringe theories held by the author. I believe it is
questionable, lacking in fact-checking and has not been properly vetted. Numerous errors, unsubstantiated and sensational claims, illogical conclusions. In a
podcast interview, the author states that no law enforcement agency including the FBI will take him seriously and have brushed him off. He also states that no news agency or publication except the tabloid
The Globe would treat him seriously either. The website contains the all-caps slogan "LETS TELL THE TRUTH AND FREE THE INNOCENT!" These statements are
red flags and without acceptance, Wikipedia should not be used as a tool of promotion for this work and the work should be omitted from all articles.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I haven't gone through all of the articles that the book is being cited in, but I believe that the book is used more or less appropriately in the article about Ryan W. Ferguson. If the book is being used as a source of factual information, that's a problem, because the author is theorizing unproven things based on his own research. But saying "This author wrote a book about this case and in it he speculates X and Y." is appropriate for the section about media coverage. Perhaps we can reword the other articles to fit with this wording. Is that acceptable, JusticeAdvocate1? Bali88 ( talk) 17:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
An editor has reverted my removal of this unreliable source on the
West Memphis Three article and arguing on that
talk page that they do not see a consensus here. They would like to argue this on an article-to-article basis which defeats the purpose of why I brought it here. Is there a consensus here? If so, then I would request editors join that discussion, please.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 19:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Is findmypast.com to be considered wholly unreliable for use in sources of BMD places and dates? I can see several discussion threads in the archives here which raise concerns about the site, e.g. that it's a commercial profit-making company, that its source material is behind a pay-wall, that it is a primary source, that its search results may be based on transcriptions, and so on. But I could not find any categorical consensus or policy decision that it should never be used in any way. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, but our WP:BLP policy states:
"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources." (The last sentence was a reference but I removed the tags) Doug Weller ( talk) 15:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE HELP SETTLE A DISPUTE BETWEEN postdlf AND Mr. Posen concerning the reliability of citing: Stop Thief! The True Story of Abraham Greenthal, King of the Pickpockets in 19th Century New York City, as Revealed from Contemporary Sources, ©2015 by Edward David Luft, Washington, DC, 166 pp. http://www.lbi.org/digibaeck/results/?qtype=pid&term=2928280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Posen ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 June 2015 Moved from preceding section by dave souza, talk 08:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
postdlf wrote an article entitled "Abe Greenthal" on Wikipedia. He cites Robert A. Rockaway as a source even though he himself easily proved Rosaway wrong on Greenthal's date of death. Nevertheless, he continued to cite Rockaway as authoritative. Mr. Posen was, upon reading the article, inspired to do the research to prove the actual facts and discovered that the greater part of postdlf's statements were wrong, having been based upon an unreliable source. Luft cited in his book highly reliable sources to prove this. postdlf claims to be too busy to look at the book to see the sources cited. Mr. Posen sees this as "Alice in Wonderland"--"First the sentence and then the evidence." If you have experience in editing 19th century criminal history or in knowing about fact-checkiong, please evaluate the Luft book as a reliable source for accurate citation. postdlf is a administrator on Wikipedia while Mr. Posen is not. postdlf states, "If the source is approved by other experienced Wikipedia editors I would of course have no problem with it being used appropriately in the article." Please see the talk pages of both postdlf and Mr. Posen for further comments. Mr. Posen ( talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE HELP SETTLE A DISPUTE BETWEEN postdlf AND Mr. Posen concerning the reliability of citing: Stop Thief! The True Story of Abraham Greenthal, King of the Pickpockets in 19th Century New York City, as Revealed from Contemporary Sources, ©2015 by Edward David Luft, Washington, DC, 166 pp. http://www.lbi.org/digibaeck/results/?qtype=pid&term=2928280 postdlf wrote an article entitled "Abe Greenthal" on Wikipedia. He cites Robert A. Rockaway as a source even though he himself easily proved Rosaway wrong on Greenthal's date of death. Nevertheless, he continued to cite Rockaway as authoritative. Mr. Posen was, upon reading the article, inspired to do the research to prove the actual facts and discovered that the greater part of postdlf's statements were wrong, having been based upon an unreliable source. Luft cited in his book highly reliable sources to prove this. postdlf claims to be too busy to look at the book to see the sources cited. Mr. Posen sees this as "Alice in Wonderland"--"First the sentence and then the evidence." If you have experience in editing 19th century criminal history or in knowing about fact-checkiong, please evaluate the Luft book as a reliable source for accurate citation. postdlf is a administrator on Wikipedia while Mr. Posen is not. postdlf states, "If the source is approved by other experienced Wikipedia editors I would of course have no problem with it being used appropriately in the article." Please see the talk pages of both postdlf and Mr. Posen for further comments.Mr. Posen (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Panjury should be objective for review and rating. Don't remove it from the Jurassic_World — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngtszman ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This came up on the discussion on Balad al-Sheikh (see Talk:Balad_al-Sheikh#Recent_revert).
The old The Palestine Post (presently The Jerusalem Post) is normally considered WP:RS, though partisan (it defined itself as a Jewish/Zionist newspaper).
Presently all the old copies (from the 1930s, 1940s), of The Palestine Post are available online, via this link. The newspaper for the Arab Palestinian at that time, Filastin (newspaper), is not online.
This creates a problem. We now have some editors searching through these archives, noting down every attack against Jews, and no attacks against Arabs. This creates rather ridiculous situations, like at Balad al-Sheikh where it is well-known that at least 10 times as many Arab civilians were killed compared with Jewish victims in the 1930 &1940s. Still, almost all the text is about the -relatively few- Jewish victims.
I have no objection agains using, say The Jerusalem Post, for present news: presently we also have other news (like Maan, or al Jazeera) that gives a different perspective. We just don´t have that for the old 1930s -1940s newspapers.
My suggestion: we can remove all references to The Palestine Post from the 1930-40s, *if* they are not used by other sources. Huldra ( talk) 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no requirement that sources be on-line, and certainly no need to ignore an on-line reliable source just because other sources, with a different view, might be available off-line. Get thee to a library and inspect off-line sources, if need be. Brad Dyer ( talk) 22:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Huldra is wrong on more than one account.
http://thehairpin.com/ is used as a source in a medical article, Lady-Comp. I cannot determine if this is a RS; it appears to be a blog that claims to have been published since 2010. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. AcidSnow has recently created the article Somalia Standard Time. Searching for "Somalia Standard Time" returns very few results on Google. I've discussed with AcidSnow whether this is the correct name for the time used in Somalia on my user talk page, and he has pointed to this source. Can we get opinions on whether this is a reliable source? Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like 3rd party opinions on whether this article in Epoch Times is reasonable reliable sourcing for establishing the notability of this lawsuit against Monsanto for false advertising. This relates to the articles on glyphosate and Monsanto legal cases. We've had several people wanting to include this lawsuit in the sections on advertising controversy, but it has been rejected by other editors on the basis of inadequate sourcing as the source previously was Examiner.com, a user-submitted bloggy source, whereas Epoch Times is an edited publication. I searched the archives about Epoch Times and found that it seems to be acceptable except possible with conflict of interest issues around Falun Gong with which it is associated. The statement that it would be supporting would be something short and simple along the lines of "In April 2015, a lawsuit was brought against Monsanto for false advertising regarding its herbicide Roundup." I've not added it yet, to either article, because there has been contention and i wanted to be polite and not get into an edit war. SageRad ( talk) 13:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Although this is verging on OR, we must realize that in the US all of the media is owned and controlled by just six corporations, so sometimes less-than-mainstream sources must be consulted when reporting on giant, powerful companies such as Monsanto.
Note also that this lawsuit is mentioned on Alternet which is citing an article in The Ecologist. Is this notable enough? SageRad ( talk) 02:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)People's opinions on whether The Ecologist is considered a reliable source for information about the chemical industry, specifically this article.
I've got someone who said that The Ecologist is never a reliable source, because it has an "agenda" of being pro-environment, in this discussion. Same user said they have "an explicitly stated intent of creating ecological controversies concerning Monsanto in particular".
However, to my mind, all sources typically have some bias and some agenda. The BBC, to my ears, has an agenda and a point of view. It may seem less so to another person whose own viewpoint is closer to that of the BBC. It's relative. The Wall Street Journal has a definite agenda. The NY Times has a perspective. NPR has a perspective. We all have points of view. Those who are skeptical of the chemical industry's own claims about itself are not inherently "unreliable sources". In fact, they're more reliable on some things than, say, the Wall Street Journal.
WP:RS contains this text prominently: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Let's get to the heart of the matter. If The Ecologist reports on contamination by Monsanto with PCBs, for instance, is this admissible or not? I strongly say that it is admissible, and i am surprised that there are editors who think not. SageRad ( talk) 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Could this archived version of Franklin and Marshall College's school paper F&M College Reporter be used in Robert Ira Lewy to support the statement "Lewy earned a degree in biology from Franklin and Marshall College in 1964, where he was elected to be a member of Phi Beta Kappa."? The information about membership in Phi Beta Kappa is not currently in the article, but the subject of the article has requested that such information be added at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy#Educational background. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
My post from questioned source was suddenly deleted with no prior discussion by Doug Weller. I posted a well supported translation of the Dan Stele from this website which I found online which is in turn from a self-published book on Amazon which I now have. I did not delete anything from the Wikipedia article itself. My aim was to post a well supported alternative translation of the inscription. Any quality encyclopedia article about controversial subjects will provide the dominant viewpoint but they always mention the minority viewpoints in order to avoid the appearance of bias.
The author of this book (Olmsted) is suggesting that these texts were composed in a different language (Akkadian, the language of Babylon and Assyria) than what has been assumed (some form of early Hebrew). This is revolutionary! People need to know about this alternative approach since it seems to allow for the translation of All the early alphabetic inscriptions.
I have been following these inscriptions for a long time in the popular magazine “Biblical Archaeology Review” and with the exception of the Dan Stele and inscriptions found prior to 1940, they have not been translatable using Hebrew. Even the first inscriptions, Proto-Sinaitic found in the Sinai desert, have not been translated. Of course this make the existing Dan Stele translation very suspect in my eyes. How could this be translated when all others cannot be? Olmsted critiques these Hebrew language derived translations and finds them to be severely flawed with letters ignored or inserted to make the desired words. In the case of the Dan stele no letter by letter translation was actually provided. Instead it is a “connect the dot” translation (Olmsted’s term) in which some isolated words are recognized and then phrases are invented to connect them. So Olmsted’s translations are actually a better quality than any existing ones.
I think we need to take the author’s explanation about why his book was self-published to heart. He wanted to make these inscriptions available to everyone without copyright restriction so he published these under the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia which no commercial publisher would do. I have lots of books with ancient inscription translations which I would love to post on Wikipedia but I can’t because they are copyright protected. So despite his translations being well supported with every letter included in the translation, Wikipedia is punishing an author with the same vision
SalamisDragon ( talk) 10:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed addition to the Funding subsection of article Americans for Prosperity:
Of the $140M AFP raised in the 2012 election cycle, $44M came from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity , the Virginia-based nonprofit that finances grass-roots activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against President Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in the last cycle came from the Koch-linked feeder funds.
A key player is Americans for Prosperity, the Virginia-based advocacy organization that finances activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in that election cycle came from Koch-linked feeder funds.
In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million — with more than $44 million of that coming from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.
The proposed content is a neutral, reasonable paraphrase summarizing a key finding of investigative journalism by neutral, highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources, including The Washington Post, a newspaper with an international reputation and multiple Pulitzer Prizes for investigative journalism. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This Washington Post story is written by a staff reporter and is plenty reliable. It says the funding came from "Koch-linked feeder funds". I would go with something like that. Being a "consumer advocate" as FactCheck.org claims to be is not any better or worse than being a "pro-business advocate." We should really avoid advocates of all kinds as sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 07:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and suggestions. Hugh ( talk) 05:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The blog "
Patently-o" is being used for a source on a U.S. Supreme Court case in
Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. The
article from the blog is written by Shubha Ghosh, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. The blog itself is published by two other law professors,
Dennis Crouch and Jason Rantanen.
WP:SPS states that if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
In addition,
fn9 on that page goes into detail on self-published blogs as being characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.
That's the case here. See also
WP:USERG and
WP:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources, Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking.
If the material is really relevant, it would have been picked up and published in a reliable, secondary source, not in a blog without editorial control in place. GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 20 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 189 | Archive 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | → | Archive 195 |
Over the last two months a large number of edits have been made to dozens, possibly hundreds of articles about law schools. Almost all the edits follow the exact same format and appear to originate from a single commercial organization " Law School Transparency", inserting links to its website into specific law school articles. LST seeks to monetize data that is available for free elsewhere, and often introduces errors into the data in the process.
There are slight variations in the edits for some law schools--for example, some note the overall employment rate for law students and not just the "Full Time JD required not solo" category invented by LST. The more favorable edits appear to be for law schools who have paid LST for its services or otherwise provided financial support to the organization.
Someone (apparently from LST) has inserted LST metrics into most law school's websites without any prior discussion of whether or not LST is a reliable source of information.
Law School Transparency or related parties have been paying individuals to insert links into Wikipedia pages and coordinating off Wikipedia. [1] I provided a reference to a thread on the website, top-law-schools.com, in which entry into a raffle with "fabulous prizes" was offered to individuals who would edit law school wikipedia pages by inserting links to LST's website. [2] [3] Individuals also pledged to defend LST and defend the edits if anyone tried to change them. [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] Individuals from LST participated in these discussions, egging people on and providing suggestions, and thanking them for boosting traffic to LST's website. [9] [10] [11] LST also encouraged them to use LST visuals on Wikipedia. [12] These payments and off-wiki-coordination were not disclosed on Wikipedia at the time of the edits.
"Fabulous prizes" appears in scare quotes and is a direct quotation to the blog post on top-law-schools.com from the individuals soliciting the links in Wikipedia to LST. The phrase appears repeatedly and is emphasized, for example by appearing in all caps in large purple font. The actual prizes were raffles for $10 gift cards. I don't think the specific denominations are what matters. It demonstrates a pattern of abuse. One individual who participated in the raffle was so highly motivated he edited dozens of law school web pages.
If you look at older top-law-schools posts by the Law School Transparency individual egging people on, this person discloses that he is a recent graduate of Vanderbilt law school, which matches up with the biographies of several of the leading figures in Law School Transparency. The fellow starting the contest appears to be a recent NYU graduate living in NY, which matches up with the biography of another leading figure in Law School Transparency. If LST is this bold on a public message board that anyone can read, can you imagine what they might be doing in their private communications? Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 06:02, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
On the top-law-schools message board, several individuals noticed that LST's employment figures for several schools were systematically lower than those they calculated independently from the ABA data and suggested this was an error. [13] [14] They were told to ask LST for direction. [15] [16] LST explained that this is because they subtract out individuals who are employed full time in JD-required jobs if they are practicing law as a solo-practitioner. [17] There is no peer-reviewed scientifically validated justification for doing this since individuals who are self employed are employed under both ABA and U.S. Government definitions--as are individuals who are employed in non-JD required or part time jobs. Someone asked if they should include more granular information and another person said no, because more detail would be "confusing" and other metrics, such as combining some employment categories with the employment category, would more simply convey LST's message that the employment figures are terrible.. [18] So LST is against providing all the data--the overall employment rate using the standard definition of employment--and against providing the most granular data--all of the employment categories and subcategories. They pick and chose to try to make things look as bad as possible.
You can also see this in how debt or cost of living figures were handled. When LST and a more reliable source came up with very different numbers, the LST paid/coordinated editor went with the LST number since it was larger. [19]
For debt, they suggested using accelerated 10 year monthly payments rather than the much lower monthly payments available over common 30 year repayments or through income contingent or income based repayment over 10 to 20 years. [20]
LST and its gang of coordinating/ paid editors also appear to have explicitly targeted non-elite law schools (which they call "toilets" [21] [22] [23] or TTT (third tier toilets), [24] leaving elite law schools wikipedia pages intact. [25] They decided to go after William and Mary specifically because it funds jobs for its students. [26] The goal does not appear to be to provide the most accurate information about law schools generally, but rather to attack specific law schools. Later in the discussion someone suggests that they should add the elite law schools just so that it doesn't look like they are targeting specific law schools, since that might lead to deletion of their comments! [27]
LST coordinated/paid editors also appear to have been tempted to delete positive material about law schools, but were unsure how far they could push the envelope. [28] [29] [30] [31]
They also tried to place negative material about law schools in as prominent a position as possible, and described positive material as "dumb as shit" [32] or "PR crap." [33]They said their goal was to "neutralize" U.S. News specialty rankings with unflattering depictions of employment data. [34]
One of LST's editors joked that he would be right back because he was "vandalizing" UT Austin's website. [35] Another described law schools as "vultures" [36]
The individual from LST (apparently Kyle McEntee) noted that he was shopping a story to the press to try to drive down enrollment in North Carolina. [37]
One of LSTs paid/coordinated editors noted that ABA data was a good replacement for LST data. [38] Another had serious doubts about whether adding links to LST added any legitimacy, since it was all based on more reliable underlying ABA data. Someone from LST responded by insisiting that links to LST and LST metrics must be included, along with their "algorithm" for inflating debt figures. [39]
When disputes arose about specific pages, the LST group used the top law schools.com message board to get LST friendly voices to chime in to support LST in these disputes. [40] This happened in particular with the LST editors were called out on Wikipedia for bias. [41] [42] I believe this is called gaming the system and is frowned upon under Wikipedia policy.
LST offered to write a script that would autogenerate text to insert in Wikipedia. [43]
Law School Transparency was founded in July 2009 by two class of 2008 law students at Vanderbilt University Law School, Kyle McEntee and Patrick J. Lynch. LST was initially funded through a Vanderbilt program to support non-profit jobs for Vanderbilt graduates who could not otherwise obtain employment. [44] When Lynch obtained a job practicing environmental law with a nongovernmental organization in South America, he reduced his involvement in LST. [45] Lynch was replaced by Derek Tokaz, a graduate of NYU Law school who blogs for the rightwing legal humor website Constitutional Daily and who pursued a Masters of Fine Arts at American University after completing law school. [46] [47] From the outset, one of the greatest challenges LST faced was securing funding and resources. [48]
"Law School Transparency is a Washington, DC-based nonprofit advocacy organization. 'LST was founded by Vanderbilt Law School class of 2008 graduates Kyle McEntee and Patrick Lynch after LST's founders were unable to secure more attractive legal employment. From the outset, one of the greatest challenges LST faced was securing funding and resources. [49] LST describes its own mission as "to make entry to the legal profession more transparent, affordable, and fair." [50] LST accuses law schools of presenting misleading data and other misdeeds, and demands payment from law schools to certify that their employment information is accurate. Critics have compared this practice to extortion. [51] [52]
The head of law school transparency, Kyle McEntee was quoted in the Washington Post saying “Law school is not a ticket to financial security . . . There’s just no evidence that the people starting school now are going to end up okay, and to me that’s really concerning.” [53] However, the Washington Post reported that there was substantial evidence of positive financial outcomes for most law graduates. McEntee also criticized the New York Times for positive press coverage of legal education and the legal profession, [54] [55] although others have suggested that that New York Times story was factually accurate and used data appropriately. [56] LST's data clearinghouse contains numerous errors. [57]
There have been numerous critiques against LST and its founders, including unethical practices that critics say resemble extortion, inaccuracies in LST data, selective and misleading presentation of data, and anti-law school bias. LST has been criticized for a lack of transparency about its own sources and uses of funds and for alleged irregularities in its dealings with the Internal Revenue Service.
LST accuses law schools of presenting misleading data and other misdeeds, and demands payment from law schools to certify that their employment information is accurate. Critics have compared this practice to extortion. [58] [59]
The head of law school transparency, Kyle McEntee was quoted in the Washington Post saying “Law school is not a ticket to financial security . . . There’s just no evidence that the people starting school now are going to end up okay, and to me that’s really concerning.” [60] However, the Washington Post reported that there was substantial evidence of positive financial outcomes for most law graduates. McEntee also criticized the New York Times for positive press coverage of legal education and the legal profession, [61] [62] although others have suggested that that New York Times story was factually accurate and used data appropriately. [63] McEntee earlier argued that law schools should cut enrollment 50 percent, [64] and explained that his goal was to drive down the price of law school. [65]
Kyle McEntee responded to peer reviewed research by professional labor economists showing that the overwhelming majority of law graduates benefit financially from their degrees and can afford to successfully repay their loans [66] by saying that the research "missed the point." [67] McEntee also accused law schools of being "immoral" and said that law students should be "frightened." [68]
Kyle McEntee and Law school Transparency have publicly backed class action lawsuits against New York area law schools for allegedly misleading employment data. [69] These suits were dismissed on the merits by multiple New York courts as having no legal merit or basis. [70] [71] [72] [73] [74] The suits were also dismissed on appeal. [75] LST and Kyle McEntee have not disclosed the nature of their relationship, if any with the plaintiffs and plaintiffs' attorneys in these lawsuits. [76]
In other words, the courts have considered LST's claims that law school data is misleading and have rejected them. Having lost in court LST is now forum shopping to Wikipedia. Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 19:35, 26 May 2015 (UTC)
According to University of Chicago Law Professor Brian Leiter, Karl N. Llewellyn Professor of Jurisprudence and Director of Chicago's Center for Law, Philosophy, and Human Values, LST co-founder Derek Tokaz has engaged in cyber-harassment of individual law professors. [77]
Inline source, reliable source, neutral POV, this now complies with BLP policy. If Leiter's claims are disputed by Mr. Tokaz, let that be added to the entry.
Tokaz has also harassed individual law professors on his website, Constitutional Daily, referring to them as "Professor Ass Dean of Admissions", saying they "give zero fucks", accusing them of trying to raise tuition, using "extremely dubious facts", being "butt-hurt", "just making stuff up", being "the most misguided in legal education", being "wrong about everything", and suggesting they should be fired from their jobs. [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]
LST's data clearinghouse contains numerous errors. [87]
LST is not transparent about its funding sources or uses of funds, and did not file paperwork with the Internal Revenue Service that is required for its donors to receive a tax deduction until after this omission was pointed out by a critic. [88]As a result, many early donors were ineligible for tax deductions which they believed they were entitled to at the time of their donations. [89] This also raises questions about whether the founders of LST, who received a non-profit grant from Vanderbilt Law School to support their early work, violated the terms of the grant because LST was not properly incorporated at the time as a non-profit.
The organization appears to be funded in part by individuals providing career placement services to former law students, and to operate by scaring them into thinking they won't be able to find a job without such services. [90]
LST uses non-standard definitions of employment and unemployment that make law school data non-comparable to widely used employment and unemployment data from almost every other source. [91] In addition, peer reviewed studies by professional social scientists find that the starting salary data on which LST relies is not predictive of long term subsequent outcomes which are more important to the value of legal education--i.e., LST's methodology has no scientific validity. [92] [93] [94] [95] [96] [97] [98] [99] [100]
Crossposting this from the Spam Noticeboard.
Hundreds of Law School Websites have been the target of undisclosed paid editing, coordinated off-Wiki.. On July 9, 2014, on the message board top-law-school.com, a user going by the name of BRUT (who had been a user since 2011 and has posted on top-law-schools.com more than 270 times; top-law-schools registration required to see BRUT's past posts) declared the completion of a project offering a bounty to those who would insert links to Law School Transparency's website (entry into a raffle with the potential win of $10) into the Wikipedia page of ABA accredited law schools. [101] This was a coordinated effort, with individuals stating which website they edited, and BRUT keeping track to avoid duplication of effort. This conflict of interest was not disclosed on Wikipedia when the edits were made. This violates Wikipedia's paid editing policies and policies against off-wiki coordination.
Someone from Law School transparency posted specifically requesting a link to LST's website and thanking for the effort, noting that the links were helping drive traffic to LST's website. The full text from the first page of the top-law-schools.com thread is provided on the spam noticeboard.
It's unclear how many Wikipedia editors were compromised, but there are 13 pages of posts on the top-law-schools.com thread announcing the raffle. Many of the editors posting here to defend LST may have been compromised by payments from LST, Spivey Cosulting, or affiliated individuals or organizations. I would request that everyone defending LST as a reliable source disclose whether or not they have any connection whatsoever to Spivey, LST, top-law-schools.com, or related individuals or entities.
And yes, someone from LST disclosed that they were editing some of the law school websites themselves. [102]
References
-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern ( talk • contribs)
The basic point is that citing LST adds nothing to the conversation, since all of the underlying data is available for free from the American Bar Association Section on Legal Education, without any advertisements or pleas for donations. LST has nothing to offer that the ABA is not providing already, and is clearly a *less* reliable source than the American Bar Association.
So why don't we all agree to take all of the LST references and editorializing by LST out of the articles and replace it with Neutral citations to the underlying ABA data, without any commentary, and without creating artificial categories of employment favored by LST. Just say what the overall employment rate is across categories, and then provide a breakdown of each ABA category without any attempt to group the categories together.
That is the most reasonable, fair, neutral and non-commercial approach to resolving this issue. Any debt level references should cite to ABA data or NALP data, not LST "estimates" and should include information on student loan default rates, where available, and typical monthly payments. We should not cite U.S. News--which is a commercial paid website--unless the data is not already available for free from the ABA. Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 22:33, 21 May 2015 (UTC)
References
This has been going for a couple of days, and there don't seem to be any more substantive comments or any additional evidence presented to support LST as a reliable source. Under the circumstances, I think the consensus view can be summarized as follows:
Therefore, no harm would be done to Wikipedia--and the integrity and reliability of Wikipedia as an Encyclopedic provider of unbiased information relying on the best and most reliable sources would be enhanced--if all citations to LST data were removed from all law school pages and replaced with a reference to the availability of the same or similar information available for free from the American Bar Association or the National Association for Law Placement. -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unemployed Northeastern ( talk • contribs)
Wikipedia's policy on reliable sources sets forth a definitive hierarchy with academic and peer-reviewed sources on top, news sources below, and ecommerce and opinionated sources like LST either prohibited or on the very lowest rung of reliability. There is no special "law school" exception to this policy. Nevertheless, many of the sources critical of LST are not law professors, but rather economists, education experts, journalists and statisticians based at other organizations such as colleges or arts & sciences, independent research organizations, and business schools. Your comments about bias of all law professors everywhere are not valid under Wikipedia's reliable source policy, but they do provide useful information about your own biases and prejudices and confirm that we have reached consensus on the merits under the official Wikipedia reliable source policy.
Under Wikipedia reliable source policy, news reports are suspect and should be replaced with academic sources whenever possible:
Wikipedia also frowns on excessive focus on recent events (such as short term outcomes for the most recent graduating class) rather than longer term historical norms (such as data available in "After the JD" or the peer reviewed academic work of Simkovic & McIntyre.
Ecommerce sources such as LST, which exist to sell the services of Spivey consulting (where McEntee and Spivey work), are not reliable sources and should not be cited except for deminimis information such as confirmation of the title of a book or movie:
Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 17:33, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
Spammy messages about Spivey consulting started appearing on Top-Law-Schools.com about the same time as all of the Wikipedia edits citing to Law School Transparency's website. [1]
One indicator of the reliability of a source, according to Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources, is whether accepted reliable sources cite it as a reliable source. Law School Transparency has been cited regularly in the reputable mainstream press.
the Law School Transparency Data Clearinghouse lists 67 schools (out of the 185 that were scored) with full-time legal employment rates below 55 percent. At the same time, law school tuition and student debt have skyrocketed. The average 2011 law graduate from Syracuse owes $132,993, not including any debt incurred for undergraduate education. At Pace, the figure is $139,007; at New York Law School, $146,230.
At some schools, less than a third of their graduating class were obtaining long-term, full-time legal jobs.
Law School Transparency ranked the S.J. Quinney College among the top 20 most transparent law schools for the data it publishes about its students' career placement records.
In 2011, tuition for private law schools was 2.5 times what it cost in 1985, after adjusting for inflation
Students can't make an informed choice about their return on investment if they can't tell from a school's rankings how many of its jobs are permanent and how many are temporary.
In 2012, [Law School Transparency] successfully pressured the American Bar Association to require that law schools disclose more detailed surveys about post-graduation employment ... While law schools previously informed prospective students how often graduates landed jobs, today's statistics tell applicants whether those jobs are full-time or part-time, long-term or short-term, and whether the position required passing a state bar exam. In other words, beginning in 2012, prospective students can see which law schools launched the most attorney careers within nine months of graduation.
In an analysis by a publication called Law School Transparency, the law school class of 2013 was the largest ever at just under 47,000 graduates nationwide. That class was kicked out into a frigid job market that saw about 26,000 of them find full-time career path jobs in the legal profession.
[Yackee's methodology uses the] law school's Law School Transparency "Employment Score," which "measures the percent of recent graduates obtaining full time employment, within nine months of graduation, for which a JD degree and bar passage are required."
Overall, nearly 85 percent of law graduates have taken out student loans, according to the website Law School Transparency, and 2010 law graduates accumulated debt averaging $77,364 at public law schools and $112,007 at private ones.
Worldbruce ( talk) 11:38, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
See also the text of Wikipedia's reliable source policy on outside usage, which states that this is only a secondary indicator of reliability, other parts of the reliable source policy trump, and minority and controversial views like LST should not be given undue weight: "Usage by other sources Widespread doubts about reliability weigh against it. If outside citation is the main indicator of reliability, particular care should be taken to adhere to other guidelines and policies, and to not represent unduly contentious or minority claims. The goal is to reflect established views of sources as far as we can determine them."
The only evidence presented for reliability of LST does not have much weight under the most generous interpretation of Wikipedia policy. Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 17:42, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
References
Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 17:08, 23 May 2015 (UTC)
Look at the edit history for Law School Transparency's wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Law_School_Transparency&action=history
Many of the same names and IP addresses appearing there can be found editing articles about specific law schools or attacking specific law professors. These include many of the individuals on this page insisting that LST is a reliable source! https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special%3AContributions&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Brut101010+&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/?limit=50&tagfilter=&title=Special%3AContributions&contribs=user&target=Epeefleche&namespace=&tagfilter=&year=2015&month=-1 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Contributions&offset=20150523095452&limit=100&tagfilter=&contribs=user&target=Epeefleche&namespace=
Epeefleche and Stesmo have apparently expressed their frustration over Law School Transparency being deemed a non-reliable source by attacking Brian Leiter's wikipedia page and the wikipedia pages of the University of Chicago, Philosophical Gourmet, The American Bar Association and Kirkland & Ellis: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663725919&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663826565&oldid=663635214 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Philosophical_Gourmet_Report&type=revision&diff=663712714&oldid=642947761 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=ABA_Journal&type=revision&diff=663728099&oldid=643625305 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Kirkland_%26_Ellis&type=revision&diff=663728236&oldid=652907416 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Brian_Leiter&type=revision&diff=663725721&oldid=663714656 https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=University_of_Chicago&type=revision&diff=663727449&oldid=662822725
This is a violation of Wikipedia's policies against retaliation. /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Avoid_repeated_arguments /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Sour_grapes /info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Civility Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC) Unemployed Northeastern ( talk) 18:59, 24 May 2015 (UTC)
That editor has now repeatedly deleted appropriate RS-sourced edits I made (while for example including an opinion piece as an RS), the latest here. On the claimed and false and baseless assertion (in part) that I have a COI here. I have none.
And I have further concerns about the editor's possible COI, as reflected here. Epeefleche ( talk) 18:47, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I am writing with regard to the article Reynolds and Reynolds in response to a view held by User:206.180.44.25 that a particular line in the article should be removed.
The content concerned is as follows:
A 2008 report by the employer rating site Glassdoor ranked Reynolds and Reynolds the third lowest rated company based on employee satisfaction.
The source used is [2]
His view is apparently based on the help provided at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_189#Glassdoor.com which suggested that Glasshouse.com does not serve as a reliable source. My interpretation is any public-edible content on Glassdoor.com cannot be used as a reliable source. In this case, however, the source made use of a collation of content from Glasshouse.com as a large scale analysis, is published by the official Glassdoor.com team and cannot be edited by the public. The statement is also factually correct and well supported by the source. As such in this case, it should be treated as a reliable source.
As the user is unable to agree with me on this ( [3]) and continue to revert my attempts of reverting his edits to remove the line ( [4]), I would appreciate if somebody should offer some help with that regard.
- Andrew Y talk 16:09, 28 May 2015 (UTC)
so, about this. How do folks feel about the sourcing of that image which that page says is: "Image taken from a page by Yoshino Hideo (Chiba prefectural assembly member in Japan), [5] but original image is from Goro Nakamura's book: Vietnam War Agent Orange, p. 119". Jytdog ( talk) 15:00, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
The image is at File:JADE HELM LOGO.png and links to [6]. At Talk:Jade Helm 15 conspiracy theories it's also been suggested that we can use a homemade video of a local council as a source. This may all of course be accurate, but I think we need much better sources. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:32, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. Are scifi-universe.com and krinein.fr reliable sources? -- Cattus talk 17:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
http://prabook.org, specifically
http://prabook.org/web/person-view.html?profileId=916725
2. Article.
Vincent Bugliosi
3. Content (a). "Bugliosi was born on August 18, 1934 in Hibbing, Minnesota, the son of Italian immigrants, Aida Valeri (Sassoferrato, Marche, Italy) and Vincenzino Bugliosi (Costacciaro, Umbria, Italy)."
4. Content (b). The above was
recently changed from: "Bugliosi was born on August 18, 1934 in Hibbing, Minnesota, the son of Italian immigrants, Ida (Valerie) and Vincent Bugliosi."
I am not familiar with this website, but the about page suggests it may be another wiki. Bringing it here for additional opinions. - Location ( talk) 15:15, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Source Book: Francis Drake in Nehalem Bay 1579, Setting the Historical Record Straight by Garry D. Gitzen, Fort Nehalem Publishing, 263 pages, 8 1/2 by 11 inches, 100 plus illustrations, 6 Appendices, more than 90 bibliography items, and 9 plus pages of end notes. [9]. [10]. [11].
Source Article: Edward Wright’s World Chart of 1599 by Garry D. Gitzen, Terrae Incognitae, Vol. 46 No. 1, April 2014, 3–15. [12]
Source Review: Terrae Incognitae Editor Marguerite Ragnow, Ph.D. review of Edward Wright's World Chart of 1599 by G. Gitzen. [13] Ggitzen ( talk) 15:01, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Alfie Deyes is a well-known British YouTube celebrity. He has authored two books and hosted a show on BBC Radio 1. Numerous editors have sought to add his birthdate to his article, initially unsourced but accurate. It is virtually unheard of for sources to be required for birthdates. However, per WP:ABOUTSELF social media sites can be used for basic, unquestionable facts. Therefore, I used a YouTube video by the subject, 'Draw my Life' in which Deyes stats his birthday as 17th September 1993. User:Nikthestunned reverted my edits has cited WP:BLPPRIVACY to argue such material should not be included in the article, despite BLPPRIVACY stating 'Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object.' It is clear Deyes does not object, because he stated his birthdate with his own mouth! The editor has also claimed the video is not a reliable source and that the birthday information is unreliable because it could be a lie. The same has occurred regarding Joe Sugg. Could other editors give their opinions on this matter AusLondonder ( talk) 13:08, 13 June 2015 (UTC)
Lex Kogan ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article contains a number of medical claims about ibogaine sourced to non-medical literature, as well as claims about living people and some borderline advertising. Any thoughts about how best to approach this one? The article was also deleted about 2 years ago, so if admin could check to see if this is a substantial copy that would be helpful. VQuakr ( talk) 03:35, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if this will be picked up, but, here goes ! Item on Saigon Post Office :- states - ".. which was built in early 20th.century..." WRONG ! I was in the building 1st.March 2015. It states there on the walls that it was built between 1886 and 1891. That's late 19th.century.
When contact changes minds ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I'd appreciate some advice regarding a Wikipedia article about a researcher (LaCour) who recently falsified data for a social science paper.
Per WP:RS, "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered...." Accordingly, I inserted the following sentence into the article When contact changes minds:
“ | Various opinions and theories have been advanced as to why
Science published the flawed article by LaCour and Green, why LaCour falsified the data, and how such conduct is perceived.[1][2][3][4][5] [1]Singal, Jesse. "Is Social Science a Giant Liberal Conspiracy?", New York Magazine (June 8, 2015). [2] ""Scientific Fraud and Politics"". Wall Street Journal. New York, NY. June 6, 2015. [3]Gambino, Lauren and Devlin, Hannah. "Study of attitudes to same-sex marriage retracted over 'fake data'", The Guardian (May 20, 2015). [4]Foster, Drew. "Will Academia Waste the Michael LaCour Scandal?", New York Magazine (June 5, 2015). [5]Cupp, S.E. "Key to changing hearts and minds on gay marriage: Don’t lie or bully", Seattle Times (May 25, 2014). |
” |
This was reverted on the grounds that "There seems to be agreement that these sources are making political hay from little or no information about the actual incident." Accordingly, there is presently no way that any of these sources can be used in this article in any way whatsoever, either to support a brief and general statement (as quoted above), much less a more detailed statement. Is this exclusion consistent with the policy?
In case anyone wants more detail (feel free to skip this): I'll briefly summarize what these five sources say for purposes of this noticeboard. According to [1], there is no evidence that Science has any liberal bias, and "LaCour and Green’s study was clearly published simply because it ran counter to so much prior research showing that it's really difficult to change people's political views (and it didn't hurt that Green's name was on it, given how respected he is in the field)." Thus, [1] is in opposition to [2] which says that LaCour's argument originally gained acceptance in the scientific community because it "flattered the ideological sensibilities of liberals, who tend to believe that resistance to gay marriage can only be the artifact of ignorance or prejudice, not moral or religious conviction." As to what motivated LaCour's dishonesty in the first place, his co-author, Donald Green, has expressed bafflement about any instance of scientific fraud, per [3]. However, [4] points to the pressure that social scientists are under to publish scholarly articles, although "profound pressure to publish certainly can’t explain LaCour’s deception on its own". In [5], pro-gay-marriage columnist S.E. Cupp writes that, "The doctored study will only encourage the perception that advocates are going too far." Anythingyouwant ( talk) 17:01, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Suggest in references "Aldershot in the Great War" published by Pen and Sword author Murray Rowlands be added. ISBN 978 1 78303 202 6 Parameter error in {{ ISBN}}: checksum published in 2015 be added to the bibliography.
This polemical book, by the "prolific science fiction and fantasy writer" John Grant (author), is in use as a source for negative information regarding the BLP Anthony Watts (blogger), and also his blog, Watts Up With That? . I raised the question of why this author is a credible source, since he doesn't seem to have any particular expertise on the topic, at the Watts BLP talk page. You may read the replies, but in essence, the substantial reply was, "Take it to RS/N."
So: why should the opinion of this SF/F writer, who occasionally writes popular science, be reliable for anything but his personal opinions? Thanks, Pete Tillman ( talk) 21:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Grant, John (2011).
Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality. Prometheus Books.
ISBN
1616144009. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
-- Pete Tillman ( talk) 21:57, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
For use in the article on Entropy Estimation.
This source is a dissertation from Duke University: http://gradworks.umi.com/33/98/3398410.html and http://dukespace.lib.duke.edu/dspace/handle/10161/2458 . It contains an analytic solution to the expected self-entropy of a distribution whose conjugate prior is a Dirichlet distribution. It is the only publication I've ever seen that provides an analytic solution to that problem, which is of course a very important problem for Machine Learning. Content hasn't been added yet, but the core content of interest is:
I read over a little but the part in WP:RS on scholarly sources, and it seems this remains ambiguous, given it's importance for Machine Learning, and the lack of any other source for an analytic solution. Kevin Baas talk 21:14, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
WP:NEWSBLOG says, "Several newspapers, magazines, and other news organizations host columns on their web sites that they call blogs. These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals...". So is Travis Walter Donovan a professional?
So is this writer a professional? Can this source be used "with caution" per WP:NEWSBLOG? OnlyInYourMind T 18:56, 8 June 2015 (UTC)
@ OnlyInYourMind: a possible interpretation is that you outsmarted us all with your misreading of WP:NEWSBLOG (I'd happily concede to that), however: this didn't bring you any closer to a permission for using a questionable source. Your contentions approach absurdity ("The reason I don't specify a claim is because I think they are all equal" – yeah, sure, like that's how an encyclopedia works: our standard MO is to summarize sources, which always implies making choices of what is left out of the summary – if "all claims are equal" it is not even possible to make a summary). -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 07:18, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
@TenOfAllTrades: The reason I don't specify a claim is because I think they are all equal. There is an author and a list of claims. None of the claims are anymore outlandish than any other. Just lecture summaries, membership numbers, statistics, locations, dates, etc. To me, it seemed the important thing was determining if this writer was a professional or not, so WP:NEWSBLOG could be applied. If we can't apply WP:NEWBLOG then specifying a claim would be a waste of time. OnlyInYourMind T 12:31, 10 June 2015 (UTC)
Book
The author claims that the above serial killer is responsible for all of the following:
This is the tip of the iceberg as Cameron concludes that Edwards killed more than 100 people, and was responsible for more than 15 wrongful convictions. Please read the second paragraph under section Other possible murders.
It is my contention that this is an
unreliable source and Wikipedia should not allow its inclusion based on the extreme
fringe theories held by the author. I believe it is
questionable, lacking in fact-checking and has not been properly vetted. Numerous errors, unsubstantiated and sensational claims, illogical conclusions. In a
podcast interview, the author states that no law enforcement agency including the FBI will take him seriously and have brushed him off. He also states that no news agency or publication except the tabloid
The Globe would treat him seriously either. The website contains the all-caps slogan "LETS TELL THE TRUTH AND FREE THE INNOCENT!" These statements are
red flags and without acceptance, Wikipedia should not be used as a tool of promotion for this work and the work should be omitted from all articles.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 13:16, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
I haven't gone through all of the articles that the book is being cited in, but I believe that the book is used more or less appropriately in the article about Ryan W. Ferguson. If the book is being used as a source of factual information, that's a problem, because the author is theorizing unproven things based on his own research. But saying "This author wrote a book about this case and in it he speculates X and Y." is appropriate for the section about media coverage. Perhaps we can reword the other articles to fit with this wording. Is that acceptable, JusticeAdvocate1? Bali88 ( talk) 17:12, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
An editor has reverted my removal of this unreliable source on the
West Memphis Three article and arguing on that
talk page that they do not see a consensus here. They would like to argue this on an article-to-article basis which defeats the purpose of why I brought it here. Is there a consensus here? If so, then I would request editors join that discussion, please.
—
Berean Hunter
(talk) 19:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Is findmypast.com to be considered wholly unreliable for use in sources of BMD places and dates? I can see several discussion threads in the archives here which raise concerns about the site, e.g. that it's a commercial profit-making company, that its source material is behind a pay-wall, that it is a primary source, that its search results may be based on transcriptions, and so on. But I could not find any categorical consensus or policy decision that it should never be used in any way. Thanks. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:56, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if this helps, but our WP:BLP policy states:
"Exercise extreme caution in using primary sources. Do not use trial transcripts and other court records, or other public documents, to support assertions about a living person. Do not use public records that include personal details, such as date of birth, home value, traffic citations, vehicle registrations, and home or business addresses.
"Where primary-source material has been discussed by a reliable secondary source, it may be acceptable to rely on it to augment the secondary source, subject to the restrictions of this policy, no original research, and the other sourcing policies Please note that exceptional claims require exceptional sources." (The last sentence was a reference but I removed the tags) Doug Weller ( talk) 15:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE HELP SETTLE A DISPUTE BETWEEN postdlf AND Mr. Posen concerning the reliability of citing: Stop Thief! The True Story of Abraham Greenthal, King of the Pickpockets in 19th Century New York City, as Revealed from Contemporary Sources, ©2015 by Edward David Luft, Washington, DC, 166 pp. http://www.lbi.org/digibaeck/results/?qtype=pid&term=2928280 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr. Posen ( talk • contribs) 20:11, 17 June 2015 Moved from preceding section by dave souza, talk 08:16, 18 June 2015 (UTC)
postdlf wrote an article entitled "Abe Greenthal" on Wikipedia. He cites Robert A. Rockaway as a source even though he himself easily proved Rosaway wrong on Greenthal's date of death. Nevertheless, he continued to cite Rockaway as authoritative. Mr. Posen was, upon reading the article, inspired to do the research to prove the actual facts and discovered that the greater part of postdlf's statements were wrong, having been based upon an unreliable source. Luft cited in his book highly reliable sources to prove this. postdlf claims to be too busy to look at the book to see the sources cited. Mr. Posen sees this as "Alice in Wonderland"--"First the sentence and then the evidence." If you have experience in editing 19th century criminal history or in knowing about fact-checkiong, please evaluate the Luft book as a reliable source for accurate citation. postdlf is a administrator on Wikipedia while Mr. Posen is not. postdlf states, "If the source is approved by other experienced Wikipedia editors I would of course have no problem with it being used appropriately in the article." Please see the talk pages of both postdlf and Mr. Posen for further comments. Mr. Posen ( talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
PLEASE HELP SETTLE A DISPUTE BETWEEN postdlf AND Mr. Posen concerning the reliability of citing: Stop Thief! The True Story of Abraham Greenthal, King of the Pickpockets in 19th Century New York City, as Revealed from Contemporary Sources, ©2015 by Edward David Luft, Washington, DC, 166 pp. http://www.lbi.org/digibaeck/results/?qtype=pid&term=2928280 postdlf wrote an article entitled "Abe Greenthal" on Wikipedia. He cites Robert A. Rockaway as a source even though he himself easily proved Rosaway wrong on Greenthal's date of death. Nevertheless, he continued to cite Rockaway as authoritative. Mr. Posen was, upon reading the article, inspired to do the research to prove the actual facts and discovered that the greater part of postdlf's statements were wrong, having been based upon an unreliable source. Luft cited in his book highly reliable sources to prove this. postdlf claims to be too busy to look at the book to see the sources cited. Mr. Posen sees this as "Alice in Wonderland"--"First the sentence and then the evidence." If you have experience in editing 19th century criminal history or in knowing about fact-checkiong, please evaluate the Luft book as a reliable source for accurate citation. postdlf is a administrator on Wikipedia while Mr. Posen is not. postdlf states, "If the source is approved by other experienced Wikipedia editors I would of course have no problem with it being used appropriately in the article." Please see the talk pages of both postdlf and Mr. Posen for further comments.Mr. Posen (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
Panjury should be objective for review and rating. Don't remove it from the Jurassic_World — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ngtszman ( talk • contribs) 02:04, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This came up on the discussion on Balad al-Sheikh (see Talk:Balad_al-Sheikh#Recent_revert).
The old The Palestine Post (presently The Jerusalem Post) is normally considered WP:RS, though partisan (it defined itself as a Jewish/Zionist newspaper).
Presently all the old copies (from the 1930s, 1940s), of The Palestine Post are available online, via this link. The newspaper for the Arab Palestinian at that time, Filastin (newspaper), is not online.
This creates a problem. We now have some editors searching through these archives, noting down every attack against Jews, and no attacks against Arabs. This creates rather ridiculous situations, like at Balad al-Sheikh where it is well-known that at least 10 times as many Arab civilians were killed compared with Jewish victims in the 1930 &1940s. Still, almost all the text is about the -relatively few- Jewish victims.
I have no objection agains using, say The Jerusalem Post, for present news: presently we also have other news (like Maan, or al Jazeera) that gives a different perspective. We just don´t have that for the old 1930s -1940s newspapers.
My suggestion: we can remove all references to The Palestine Post from the 1930-40s, *if* they are not used by other sources. Huldra ( talk) 21:34, 7 June 2015 (UTC)
There is no requirement that sources be on-line, and certainly no need to ignore an on-line reliable source just because other sources, with a different view, might be available off-line. Get thee to a library and inspect off-line sources, if need be. Brad Dyer ( talk) 22:34, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
Huldra is wrong on more than one account.
http://thehairpin.com/ is used as a source in a medical article, Lady-Comp. I cannot determine if this is a RS; it appears to be a blog that claims to have been published since 2010. — Brianhe ( talk) 18:17, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. AcidSnow has recently created the article Somalia Standard Time. Searching for "Somalia Standard Time" returns very few results on Google. I've discussed with AcidSnow whether this is the correct name for the time used in Somalia on my user talk page, and he has pointed to this source. Can we get opinions on whether this is a reliable source? Cordless Larry ( talk) 15:53, 14 June 2015 (UTC)
Hello. I'd like 3rd party opinions on whether this article in Epoch Times is reasonable reliable sourcing for establishing the notability of this lawsuit against Monsanto for false advertising. This relates to the articles on glyphosate and Monsanto legal cases. We've had several people wanting to include this lawsuit in the sections on advertising controversy, but it has been rejected by other editors on the basis of inadequate sourcing as the source previously was Examiner.com, a user-submitted bloggy source, whereas Epoch Times is an edited publication. I searched the archives about Epoch Times and found that it seems to be acceptable except possible with conflict of interest issues around Falun Gong with which it is associated. The statement that it would be supporting would be something short and simple along the lines of "In April 2015, a lawsuit was brought against Monsanto for false advertising regarding its herbicide Roundup." I've not added it yet, to either article, because there has been contention and i wanted to be polite and not get into an edit war. SageRad ( talk) 13:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
Although this is verging on OR, we must realize that in the US all of the media is owned and controlled by just six corporations, so sometimes less-than-mainstream sources must be consulted when reporting on giant, powerful companies such as Monsanto.
Note also that this lawsuit is mentioned on Alternet which is citing an article in The Ecologist. Is this notable enough? SageRad ( talk) 02:18, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:54, 21 June 2015 (UTC)People's opinions on whether The Ecologist is considered a reliable source for information about the chemical industry, specifically this article.
I've got someone who said that The Ecologist is never a reliable source, because it has an "agenda" of being pro-environment, in this discussion. Same user said they have "an explicitly stated intent of creating ecological controversies concerning Monsanto in particular".
However, to my mind, all sources typically have some bias and some agenda. The BBC, to my ears, has an agenda and a point of view. It may seem less so to another person whose own viewpoint is closer to that of the BBC. It's relative. The Wall Street Journal has a definite agenda. The NY Times has a perspective. NPR has a perspective. We all have points of view. Those who are skeptical of the chemical industry's own claims about itself are not inherently "unreliable sources". In fact, they're more reliable on some things than, say, the Wall Street Journal.
WP:RS contains this text prominently: "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject."
Let's get to the heart of the matter. If The Ecologist reports on contamination by Monsanto with PCBs, for instance, is this admissible or not? I strongly say that it is admissible, and i am surprised that there are editors who think not. SageRad ( talk) 14:49, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
03:01, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
Zad
68
02:18, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Could this archived version of Franklin and Marshall College's school paper F&M College Reporter be used in Robert Ira Lewy to support the statement "Lewy earned a degree in biology from Franklin and Marshall College in 1964, where he was elected to be a member of Phi Beta Kappa."? The information about membership in Phi Beta Kappa is not currently in the article, but the subject of the article has requested that such information be added at Talk:Robert Ira Lewy#Educational background. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 01:19, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
My post from questioned source was suddenly deleted with no prior discussion by Doug Weller. I posted a well supported translation of the Dan Stele from this website which I found online which is in turn from a self-published book on Amazon which I now have. I did not delete anything from the Wikipedia article itself. My aim was to post a well supported alternative translation of the inscription. Any quality encyclopedia article about controversial subjects will provide the dominant viewpoint but they always mention the minority viewpoints in order to avoid the appearance of bias.
The author of this book (Olmsted) is suggesting that these texts were composed in a different language (Akkadian, the language of Babylon and Assyria) than what has been assumed (some form of early Hebrew). This is revolutionary! People need to know about this alternative approach since it seems to allow for the translation of All the early alphabetic inscriptions.
I have been following these inscriptions for a long time in the popular magazine “Biblical Archaeology Review” and with the exception of the Dan Stele and inscriptions found prior to 1940, they have not been translatable using Hebrew. Even the first inscriptions, Proto-Sinaitic found in the Sinai desert, have not been translated. Of course this make the existing Dan Stele translation very suspect in my eyes. How could this be translated when all others cannot be? Olmsted critiques these Hebrew language derived translations and finds them to be severely flawed with letters ignored or inserted to make the desired words. In the case of the Dan stele no letter by letter translation was actually provided. Instead it is a “connect the dot” translation (Olmsted’s term) in which some isolated words are recognized and then phrases are invented to connect them. So Olmsted’s translations are actually a better quality than any existing ones.
I think we need to take the author’s explanation about why his book was self-published to heart. He wanted to make these inscriptions available to everyone without copyright restriction so he published these under the same Creative Commons license as Wikipedia which no commercial publisher would do. I have lots of books with ancient inscription translations which I would love to post on Wikipedia but I can’t because they are copyright protected. So despite his translations being well supported with every letter included in the translation, Wikipedia is punishing an author with the same vision
SalamisDragon ( talk) 10:44, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Proposed addition to the Funding subsection of article Americans for Prosperity:
Of the $140M AFP raised in the 2012 election cycle, $44M came from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.
Sources:
Americans for Prosperity , the Virginia-based nonprofit that finances grass-roots activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against President Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in the last cycle came from the Koch-linked feeder funds.
A key player is Americans for Prosperity, the Virginia-based advocacy organization that finances activities across the country and ran an early and relentless television ad assault against Obama during the 2012 campaign. More than $44 million of the $140 million the organization raised in that election cycle came from Koch-linked feeder funds.
In the 2012 election cycle, AFP reportedly raised $140 million — with more than $44 million of that coming from a donor network organized by the Koch brothers.
The proposed content is a neutral, reasonable paraphrase summarizing a key finding of investigative journalism by neutral, highly noteworthy, highly reliable sources, including The Washington Post, a newspaper with an international reputation and multiple Pulitzer Prizes for investigative journalism. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 18:36, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
This Washington Post story is written by a staff reporter and is plenty reliable. It says the funding came from "Koch-linked feeder funds". I would go with something like that. Being a "consumer advocate" as FactCheck.org claims to be is not any better or worse than being a "pro-business advocate." We should really avoid advocates of all kinds as sources. CorporateM ( Talk) 07:38, 22 June 2015 (UTC)
Thank you for your help and suggestions. Hugh ( talk) 05:53, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
The blog "
Patently-o" is being used for a source on a U.S. Supreme Court case in
Bowman v. Monsanto Co.. The
article from the blog is written by Shubha Ghosh, a law professor at the University of Wisconsin. The blog itself is published by two other law professors,
Dennis Crouch and Jason Rantanen.
WP:SPS states that if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else will probably have done so.
In addition,
fn9 on that page goes into detail on self-published blogs as being characterized by the lack of independent reviewers (those without a conflict of interest) validating the reliability of contents.
That's the case here. See also
WP:USERG and
WP:Attribution#Using questionable or self-published sources, Editors should exercise caution for two reasons: first, if the information on the professional researcher's blog (or self-published equivalent) is really worth reporting, a reliable source will probably have covered it; secondly, the information has been self-published, which means it has not been subject to independent fact-checking.
If the material is really relevant, it would have been picked up and published in a reliable, secondary source, not in a blog without editorial control in place. GregJackP Boomer! 18:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)