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 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 |
Greetings.
Is The Telegraph article a reliable source regarding this statement [1]
The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner
The unit in question is a neo-Nazi militia that has been reported to commit crimes during the war in Ukraine, and has been condemned by US Congress last week [2]. The Telegraph article is used to support(among other sources like BBC, The Guardian) the use of Wolfsangel symbol by the unit.The Wiki article in question is Fascist symbolism-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 09:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The latter incarnation received media attention in The Washington Post and The Times of London
(1988). "NORTHEAST JOURNAL". New York Times October 23, 1988. Section 1; Part 2, Page 42, Column 4;
There is a discussion on WP:Articles for deletion/Monarchy Party for notability. I believe the article fails verification. Timeraner ( talk) 17:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've twice made edits to the following article: /info/en/?search=Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
My edits have been reversed and someone is accusing me of being a Sen. Sanders operative. While it's true I support Sen. Sanders, I do so because I am interested in the transparent nature of our democracy. It's the same reason I want to see O'Malley, Chafee, and even Hillary Clinton have proper citations.
Here the gist of the matter:
1. The two articles that make up the lion's share of Hillary Clinton's "endorsements" are not sourced themselves:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/238912-2016-hillary-endorsement-list http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-endorsements
2. Here's an example from the CNN article of what the Clinton folks, or people with no sense of our primary process, are trying to pass off as an endorsement:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota - Signed a letter with all other female senators backing a Clinton run
Every Democratic female Senator and Congresswoman signed a letter encouraging Hillary to run. That is not an endorsement of candidacy. All that represents is some people want Hillary to run for the nomination. Those reasons range from wanting a female in the race, those that want as many candidates as possible, or some sense of obligation to a former fellow Congresswoman to show her some semblance of support. Whatever the reasons, these can hardly be interpreted as an endorsement.
Need proof? The CNN article states that Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) signed the same letter for Hillary. However, the Clinton supporters wouldn't dare list Warren as a Hillary endorser since Warren is a well-known politician and anyone who follows American politics and is familiar with Sen. Warren's politics knows that she isn't going to endorse a blue dog moderate like Hillary when more left-leaning candidates are in the race. Lesser known politicians got the copy/paste.
It was not a mistake that Senator Warren was left off the original list since she's likely to support Senator Sanders. However, you don't see her name as a Sanders supporter, do you? No, even though the PAC formed to draft Warren for a presidential run is now supporting Bernie Sanders, she hasn't made a formal endorsement so she's not included in the article.
Congresspeople have campaign events, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and a hundred other outlets to where they can definitely give their endorsement. A citation without a source is no endorsement at all.
3. The primary season has barely begun. Many of these citations are dated before any other candidate, even candidate Hillary, entered the race. Let's not forget, much of Hillary's tacit 2008 support jumped ship to Obama before they made any formal endorsement: /info/en/?search=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2008_presidential_campaign_endorsements /info/en/?search=List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2008
If possible, lock this article down and let a seasoned and impartial administrator manage this page. Otherwise, the "inevitability" folks will continue to feed a false narrative. This isn't the place for spin.
Thanks JaskaPDX ( talk) 14:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)JaskaPDX
I know some editors won't welcome yet another discussion. But I think it would be useful to have the following account in our records: a story of how the Mail published a completely false story, obviously without any attempt at verification. To be clear: there is no current issue at an article where an editor is proposing to use the DM as a source -- there might be nothing further to discuss. But again, useful for future reference. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I used next reference: Edouard Sayous, Histoire générale des Hongrois,British Library, Historical Print Editions, 2012, ISBN 978-1249017387, page 25
The reference was entered in /info/en/?search=Gelou more precide in: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gelou&diff=668151258&oldid=668146183
Sayous |first=Edouard |year= 2012 |title=Histoire générale des Hongrois, |publisher= British Library, Historical Print Editions, 2012|isbn=978-1249017387|ref=harv}}
Content :
French Edouard Sayous wrote a History of Hungary where affirmed that Gelou land was a Vlach land [1]
Sayous received the prix of French Academy for this work.
Is this a reliable source or not ?
Eurocentral ( talk) 11:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A site normally used to track album and singles positions on iTunes, http://kworb.net/cc/ustotals.html gave some figures which have been included on multiple articles ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Figures seem to match that of some previously reported, however source its self claims "Aggregate Sales Estimates (United States)", "Exact Soundscan figures have not been incorporated.", "Subtracted sales due to "Complete My Album" are still included." and "Only covers top 200/400 weekly sales for some periods". I'd be strong to suggest it was unreliable, but would like other opinions before I get myself into multiple edit wars with the same author of these additions. Azealia911 talk 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
This question comes on the back of me just withdrawing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNS Durdondo. The issues relate to reliable sources for for the Bangladeshi defence forces. The site http://www.defencebd.com/ is a blogger.com site which may or may not be an official website of the Bangladesh Armed Forces (the primary one is http://www.army.mil.bd/); urls within it don't appear to be stable. Is this a reliable source for articles such as BNS Durdondo. What kinds of things can be sourced to it? Is there a mechanism for auto-pushing those urls into archive.org? Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate some community feedback on Graham Cawthon as a reliable source for professional wrestling.
He has a degree in journalism from Radford University ( [4]).
His work has been featured and cited by Yahoo!, E!, The Wrap, Buzzfeed, The Drudge Report, The Associated Press, The Kansas City Star, The Star (Shelby, NC), and the Gaston (NC) Gazette ( [5]).
He worked for the Shelby Star for a decade, including a role as news editor ( [6]). In 2008, he was one of five journalists in the United States to receive a Shining Star Award from Freedom Communications ( [7]). During his time with the Star, the paper won the North Carolina Press Association's General Excellence Award ( [8]).
In the Acknowledgements section of Andre the Giant: A Legendary Life (Simon & Schuster), author Michael Krugman offers "major gratitude to Graham Cawthon and his invaluable www.thehistoryofwwe.com" ( [9])
Wrestling author Tim Hornbaker has credited Cawthon on multiple occasions. In Legends of Pro Wrestling: 150 Years of Headlocks, Body Slams, and Piledrivers, he states, "Dave Meltzer's groundbreaking Wrestling Observer newsletter was also a valuable resource as well as Graham Cawthon's website, www.thehistoryofwwe.com, which is a must see for any wrestling fan" ( [10]). He also mentions him in Capitol Revolution: The Rise of the McMahon Wrestling Empire (ECW Press) as one of "a number of friends, contributors, and fellow researchers....These knowledgeable individuals were always available to correspond and offered a great deal of assistance in the creation of this project" ( [11]).
His website includes a section that compiles feedback from various authorities in the wrestling industry (wrestlers, journalists, etc.). This features praise from 20 wrestling insiders on the research and information. John Pollock of The Fight Network refers to it as an "excellent resource," and wrestling manager Oliver Humperdink states that the site " has become THE leading resource for wrestling historians" ( [12]).
The website Pro Wrestling Tees sells a shirt that reads "I'm a Graham Cawthon Guy ( [13]).
He is interviewed and and invited to participate in interviews on many wrestling websites, including placetobenation.com ( [14]), Pro Wrestling Torch ( [15]), Larry Fedoruk of News Talk 610 CKTB ( [16]), Online World of Wrestling (http://www.clickwrestle.com/content/podcast-episode/oww-radio-the-rock-returns-guests-graham-cawthon - not linked here because it's apparently blacklisted), Gary Mehaffy of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter ( [17]), and more.
Cawthon's books include forewords written by major figures in the professional wrestling business, including Jim Cornette ( [18]), Bobby Eaton ( [19]), and Tommy Dreamer ( [20]).
I am of the opinion that that above information establishes him as a respected journalist and an expert in the field. My question is whether Cawthon's website (thehistoryofwwe.com) and/or Cawthon's books (self-published through CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) can be used as reliable sources for professional wrestling match results. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)I recently got into a conflict with another editor when I added Tony Longo in the Deceased Cast Members section in /info/en/?search=List_of_previous_The_Young_and_the_Restless_cast_members. The editor wanted a source that Longo had appeared in the show, and for the given time period and the characters that he played despite that we never put sources for that kind of information since it's only a list article. Ultimately I succeeded to find a source that lived up to all hs demmands but to avoid eventual conflicts in the future I wonder what the policy is. Is it really necessary with source for that kind of information and if it is, can Imdb be considered as a reliable source in this case since it's not a BLP article? DrKilleMoff ( talk) 12:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Jimjilin and I have exhausted discussions at Talk:Michael Kempner at I'd like to get a third party to weigh in. here is the contentious edit:
And cites two Washington Examiner op-eds, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-like-george-soros-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett-get-rich-off-of-democratic-policies/article/2547924 and http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-benefit-from-democratic-policies/article/2554908. The issues I have are that:
I have asked Jimjilin to provide a less partisan source and I've tried as well, but without success. Without a source more neutral/reliable than the Examiner op-ed pages, I believe this claim should be moved or reworded to avoid the appearance that there is some quid pro quo arrangement between Kempner and Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a reliable source for the author's opinon. The first question to settle is whether this opinion is noteworthy. If not, leave the whole thing out. If it is noteworthy, cite it as the opinion of the source, and use a better source to WP:ASSERT Obama's uninvolvement with light bulbs. Rhoark ( talk) 18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
whether this opinion is noteworthysounds like it's talking about an evaluation of the content of the opinion itself rather than the source. If the only sources are two op ed pieces in the same publication (and the Washington Examiner doesn't exactly have a reputation for neutrality in the first place), it doesn't merit inclusion (especially in a BLP). That's not to say they can never be used, of course -- like Rhoark says an opinion piece is a valid source for that person's opinion -- but it's not enough to introduce an allegation/connection like this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
For context, it appears Jimjilin has been edit warring over this specific addition since October, adding more or less the same thing twelve times (an issue for ANI rather than RSN): [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I am seeking input on a source, an essay hosted at http://www.philippineupdate.com/ . I am unsure as to whether this essay is a reliable source or not. It cites a reference list, but is not foot noted. Also Philippine Update does not appear to be a professional news organization. It is being used as a reference to content added at the article Moro Rebellion. At best it might be user generated content.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
A while back I started an article on Single Asian Female, which uses three news articles as secondary sources: a 2006 article from AsianWeek, a 2008 article from the Northwest Asian Weekly, and a 2006 article from the San Francisco Chronicle.
There is a reader at Talk:Single Asian Female who argued that there is a serious omission being made: The article on Single Asian Female doesn't talk about accusations that the comic is itself racist. Many scathing reviews have been made about SAF on internet forums and open Wikis, accusing the comic of being anti-White racist. I actually agree with that accusation. The problem: I can't include this information in the article because it's not covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources defined by Wikipedia! I attempted to make this clear in the talk page back in 2011 Talk:Single_Asian_Female#On_racism_accusations but I've still gotten an inquiry about this.
Now that the radar has fallen off of the subject (no new reliable sources have been published about this subject), it's difficult to further develop the article. It's a similar problem faced by the editors here: Talk:Citizendium/Archive_4#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F.
What do we tell readers who ask about this situation? Should we encourage them to write letters to magazines and newspapers and ask them to publish articles including the info so Wikipedia can include it? WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Have a query as to the validity of a cite that is a cut and paste of a Freedom of Request email to a hosting application [37] that has been included in the New Routemaster article. Am thinking this may fail WP:V as not a published cite, but thought it best to clarify. Castroex ( talk) 21:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Given the negative conversation regarding the Daily Mail above and the derisory comments left when some editors have tried to use the Daily Mail as a source, I have a question. If the Daily Mail is reporting a science article and reports this with 100% accuracy, which is the better source to use - the Daily Mail (secondary source) or the original article (primary source)? DrChrissy (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would not trust the Daily Mail on anything. If it says something about science, the opposite is most probably true. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it be correct then to say "In some cases (where reliability is a concern), a primary source is preferred to a secondary source"?DrChrissy (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The Mail is an excellent source, for paper to put on the nail of the outhouse. It is a bit rough though. - Roxy the non edible dog™ ( resonate) 15:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
An editor is making major changes to early (>1000 yrs) History of Rakhine ( [38]), Rakhine people ( [39]) and Rakhine State using single source [40]. I don't think it is a reliable source because (1) the website is closely associated to ARNO with is (frankly speaking) nemesis of Rakhines, and (2) I've fact-checked some of its cited source and the sources don't mean like this. So, I don't think it is a reliable source and want to remove this section. Thank you. Laurence Watcher ( talk) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Per this repeated edit, Guy makes the claim that anything under a particular top-level domain is "bad" and can never be linked: "rm. refspam", "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source." [1] [2]
References
This is simplistic in the extreme. It's the same faulty logic that leads to removing sources because their URL matches /wordpress/
. If that was true, we could have 'bots do all the editing for us. We do not care what the publishing platform is, we care about the content and the reliability of its authors.
In the case of these sources, they're from Ralf Herrmann. He is not well-known, he's a typographer. There are not many well-known typographers. In his field though, his writing and this site are seen as credible sources. Not to a WP:N BLP, but certainly to WP:RS. Nor are the explanatory texts linked "refspam" as Guy has it.
Would http://www.typografie.info be similarly barred? As I understand it, it's the same content as http://typography.guru, but the German language version rather than English.
Your thoughts please. Should we disconnect editorial critical thinking in favour of text pattern matching? Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
May Max Blumenthal be used for wiki articles?
There is an interminable argument ([ Battle of Shujaiyya]) between only a few editors, with regard to his 2 books and articles on the I/P area. He is being consistently removed from any I/P article he is cited on, but his journalism is widely cited throughout Wikipedia articles not directly regarding Israel, on the most varied topic. Part of the issue is touched on above regarding his publishing in Mondoweiss, but only one outside editor has commented there. The problem is more general.
The Occidental Quarterly; The Political Cesspool; Al Akhbar (Lebanon); Cornell Tech; Hal Turner; Regnery Publishing; American Islamic Congress; Justice Sunday; Men of Israel; Andrew Breitbart; Kevin B. MacDonald; David L. Cunningham; Alaskan Independence Party; Judith Reisman; Gatestone Institute; The Washington Times; International Republican Institute; Nina Rosenwald; The Naked Communist; Elim Bible Institute; Anton Chaitkin;* Charles Colson; Group of 184; Constitution Party of Wisconsin; Beer for My Horses; Howard Ahmanson, Jr; Scott Howell; Campaign to Defend the Constitution; Council of Conservative Citizens; Youth With A Mission; Paleoconservatism; Earl Warren; Chris Simcox; Constitution Party (United States); New Life Church (Colorado Springs, Colorado); David Barton (author); Chloé Valdary; 2004 Haitian coup d'état; to cite just a few.
Could independent editors please tell me what is the operative rule here? Is there some ruling that specifies the journalist is RS for hundreds of articles, but his 2 books, one award winning, on Israel are off-limits? Has any other editorial team consistently made such a huge issue of Max Blumenthal's journalism in Wikipedia? Nishidani ( talk) 19:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@ No More Mr Nice Guy: If your point is that Blumenthal can be used with attribution, can we do that on the Shujaiyya page, instead of removing him altogether?
To other editors watching this space: my own viewpoint on the talk page is that Blumenthal is reliable in this context because his article and book detailing eyewitness testimony is used together with other sources like UN reports and other media reports, and many points are corrobrated therein. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Reliability is always in a context. There is no blanket reason material by Max Blumenthal should be considered always or usually unreliable, in or out of the Israel-Palestine topic. Rhoark ( talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By the end of 2008, the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip had been left to fend for themselves. Gaza was surrounded on all sides by Israeli sniper towers, electrified fences, concrete walls, and a naval blockade that prevented fishermen from trawling waters more than 3 kilometers from shore. Weaponized drones hovered overhead night and day, humming an incessant single note dirge that served as a constant reminder of Israeli control. Heeding Israeli government pledges to push Gaza’s economy “to the brink of collapse,” army bureaucrats in Tel Aviv developed complex mathematical formulas to regulate the caloric intake of each person trapped inside the coastal strip. Gazans were forbidden from exporting products and prevented from importing cardamom, potato chips, seeds and nuts, cement, fruit preserves, ginger, fishing nets, notebooks, musical instruments, size A4 paper, and toys.
Blumenthal is a fringe activist who commonly makes equivalences between Israel and Nazi Germany. His views are so toxic that he was roundly condemned in the left-wing publication The Nation, which is consistently critical of Israel [41]. He also compares Israel to ISIL, having coined the hashtag "JSIL" (Jewish State of Israel in the Levant) [42]. He is not reliable for any sort of factual claims and the fact that editors insist on including him as a source shows how much the IP environment has been degraded. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 17:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
http://www.orwelltoday.com, specifically
http://www.orwelltoday.com/afghanheroin.shtml
2. Article.
Heroin
3. Content. The cultivation of opium in Afghanistan reached its peak in 1999, when 350 square miles (910 km2) of poppies were sown. The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, a move which cut production by 94 percent. By 2001 only 30 square miles (78 km2) of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles (740 km2), with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more.
The material is likely true, but it is the reliability of the source that I question. The website appears to be the work of Jackie Jura, self-described as "an independent researcher monitoring local, national and international events". I initially removed the source as unreliable ( diff), however, it was reinserted with the following edit summary: "1. There are other more authoritative sources--this isn't necessary or sufficient as a reference. 2. This quotes other reliable sources in its text without huge POV input. This reference is valid." ( diff) Bringing it here for additional opinions. - Location ( talk) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia | Orwelltoday |
---|---|
The cultivation of opium in Afghanistan reached its peak in 1999, when 350 square miles (910 km2) of poppies were sown. The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, a move which cut production by 94 percent. By 2001 only 30 square miles (78 km2) of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles (740 km2), with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more. | "...The cultivation of opium reached its peak in 1999, when 225,000 acres - 350 square miles - of poppies were sown... The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, declaring it to be "un-Islamic" - a move which cut production by 94 per cent... By 2001 only 30 square miles of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles, with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more." |
It seems to have got suitable external media coverage, according to Google custom search. Kailash29792 ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I used an article published on the website Medium as a source, and it was removed for being published on a self-publishing platform, which it was. However, the site is also used for professional publications with editorial staff, which is the case of my source. Further, the author of the article has several other writings on related topics published by established, reliable publishers.
The article in question is "The Transhumanist Who Would Be President" on the blog re:form. The author is Ajai Raj, who has been published by Business Insider, Cosmos Magazine, Popular Science, and Salon. I used it as a source on the Wikipedia page on life extension in the politics section for the following statement:
Zoltan Istvan, founder of the Transhumanist Party, is running for the office of the President of the United States in the 2016 election to give political visibility to ideas such as life extension.
The publication seems to me to have high-quality content. Medium is just a tool, after all, like
WordPress, and not all blogs that use WordPress are unreliable. The main difference is that Medium gives a medium.com
domain name.
Is this source reliable here?
-- Haptic-feedback ( talk) 19:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Medium is a platform on which one can self-publish. That doesn't mean everything that can be found there is WP:SPS. In particular, it has a built-in feature for users to set themselves up "publications" which are groupings of users and articles in which there can be editorial control. This does in principle constitute third-party publishing, if there is reason to believe that quality editorial control is actually exercised. This likelihood is improved if:
These all seem to be the case for re:form. I don't discern any reputation, good or bad, for re:form. Some would disqualify a source on that basis, but I don't think that's required. In the absence of reputation, I'd assign reliability but little to no weight. Rhoark ( talk) 21:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Major Vandalism on the College tuition in the United States, but since reliability of sources was in question, it was suggested that the discussion be brought here:
One editor has wreaked havoc via a deletion of a huge number of sources that have been discussed vetted, and agreed upon by the community. Some of them have been in there for ages, as a quick review of the edit history will show. In order of appearance on that edit, the sources are as follows: Watts (thirstforjustice), Investopedia, Mockler (NY Times, cited in Tumbler), Collinge (StudentLoanJustice, cited in NY Art World Commentary), Kantrowitz (finaid.org), gcstudent.org, Watson (cited in dailyfinance.com), and collegetips.com.
EVERY one of those sources is credible and reliable, most especially as they are either advocates making suggestions, or reliable news sources, or experts in the field. Let's take a look at each one of them, shall we:
So, if Flyte35 had no problems then, what is the big fuss now? “When the cat's away, the mice will play,” and with ElKebvo, a voice of reason, gone, and the other editor both anonymous and now gone, Flyte35 is “taking over” this article.
Even in Late July of last year (2014), we see no problem with Watts, with Kantrowitz, with USPirg, with Collinge, etc. (And rightfully so: These are all big names in the College Loan Reform advocacy movements!)
In fact, just recently, other editors put Flyte's bizarre behavior in check, as right here, where one editor even said: “(a series of edits removing the Watts source) - If the reliability of the Watts source is what this hinges on, this should probably go to WP:RSN. The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization).”
In this discussion on the talk page of the article in question, we find the following out:
ALL the sources were reliable:
Flyte35 is a vandal, whether his/her intent is good or bad ((and I will assume WP:Good Faith), and he has destroyed this article.
Please take a look. 96.59.141.200 ( talk) 10:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
What others of you seem to miss was described by Rhododendrites talk in this reply here. He (or she) said: said: “(a series of edits removing the Watts source) - If the reliability of the Watts source is what this hinges on, this should probably go to WP:RSN. The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization).” While I share your concerns about the Watts post, notice, if you all would two things: First, since Rhododendrites talk makes a good case that this source can be included as an advocate (an assessment with which I agree), then it stands to reason that all the other sources that Flyte35 ( talk) willy-nilly deleted can be also included. (If, as some say, they are more credible than the Watts source on college loan issues, and a good argument for that exists.) Secondly, this may sound a bit biased, but it is what it is: The college loan industry is oppressing many people who are in the age-group of those who edit here, and you are, effectively, shooting yourselves in the foot. Did you see the huge difference that resulted when Flyte35 ( talk) got finished? Did you see all that he/she deleted? Did you even read it? I would recommend that you looks first, at the damage done, and then at version of the page immediately before the damage done, and note the recommendations are just that: recommendations from advocate, not unbiased news experts, who would (of course) not be permitted to weigh in on this head, and then revert accordingly.
I agree with Rhododendrites talk that these sources should be included. Thoughts? Views? 96.59.134.227 ( talk) 17:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I just want to chime in because I was mentioned a few times above. As Flyte35 pointed out, I did not say the sources should be included (nor excluded). I said "The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization). So certainly the amicus briefs issued by, say, the Berkman Center, ACLU, or Stanford Law School are perspectives worth including in a section like this, but I frankly don't know about Watts." -- Certainly not an endorsement, though I guess I can see being misread there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@
71.101.58.56: above you said "96.59.134.227 is correct to describe what I did..."
.
96.59.134.227 actually geolocates to the same part of Florida your IP geolocates to -- and not an urban center. Is this coincidence? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 02:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There are actually two different issues going on here. The first has to do with the issue college tuition not being inflationary. That's really the only thing where reliability is the issue. Watts says college tuition not is not inflationary. Then there's another line, sourced to Investopedia, the Garrett Mockler thing, and the Alan Collinge piece, that should be removed because the authors do not say that.
This is the only thing where the reliability is at issue, and the only thing that's really appropriate for discussion here.
The second issue is actually not relevant to this discussion board, because it doesn't have much to do with source reliability. The section section deleted (sourced to Mark Kantrowitz, the piece called "Cutting College Costs," and the Bruce Watson thing) should just be removed because it's adding personal finance recommendations to an article that's otherwise about policy. I'd be happy to discuss that, but it's not really for this forum. The only part where source reliability is at issue is the "tuition not inflationary" line. For efficiently's sake, and to try to come to resolution, I recommend only discussing that part (Watts, Investopedia, Mockler, Collinge) here. Flyte35 ( talk) 00:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that some editors who have followed this thread may have thought that this was a dead issue, but we've reached an impasse on 3 issues, and I (myself, at least) seek your participation in the talk page of this article:
The 2nd item in this list is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources issue; the 1st and 3rd issues, technically, not (but the other 2 issues remain in dispute as well, so additional input would be welcome).
1. Bankruptcy is loan forgiveness, partial or total - like it or not - and thus Flyte35's suggestion that the section in question "is about loan forgiveness," not bankruptcy, is moot.
2. Flyte35 still claims that the Watts source is not reliable, in spite of the fact that I found a citation to his official blog (and not some " http://thirstforjustice.net yahoo's" blog, which was Flyte35's original complaint, and a valid complain I concede). Moreover, I don't see why Watts is any less reliable? His blog seems to have just as accurate facts and well-sourced, as most other advocates' blogs I've seen: Robert Applebaum or Alan Collinge, for example, both of whom are in the article in question. Please clarify or distinguish here?
3. Even in the much less controversial issue (not involving Watts, Mocker, Applebaum, Collinge, Investopedia, etc.), Flyte35 made this deletion. He said "As I've already explained, the other recommendations are policy recommendations. Those are personal finance recommendations, and inappropriate here.)" in edit comments, but I think these are indeed are good recommendations on how to "address" rising tuition, even if it is, in these cases, by increasing income versus decreasing tuition.
As I said above, I conceded one point about the "thirstforjustice" blog, and made corrections (using Watts' offical blog, which I infer is reliable, since it is from the horse's mouth) and also made language corrections (see recent edits, such as: "(which is a type of partial or total loan forgiveness)," in this edit, here to address his "bankruptcy vs forgiveness" concerns, but we're still at an impasse. I will add one point: #4: while the Watts source is the main one Flyte35 is complaining about, nonetheless, he deleted both these recommendations, discussed in point #3. above, as well as Dr. Mark Kantrowitz, who is a world-renowned expert in Higher Ed. In short, it was not just Watts, but many other sources that were reliable, yet deleted by Flyte35. Your input is sought on these 4 points, particularly the 2nd one. 96.59.148.12 ( talk) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The source in question is this blog post on Foreign Policy's Passport blog:
It has controversial content that has been quoted in articles such as:
Such content includes the quote:
"Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role in facilitating the overthrow of a democratically elected government"
... among other quotes.
The reason I question the reliability of this blog post is since Passport is a blog, sometimes for summer interns of Foreign Policy. The author of the blog post, Katelyn Fossett, was also just an intern at Foreign Policy at the time. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable".-- ZiaLater ( talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by Mbinebri. Further, the quote "Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role...", is linked to Le Monde diplomatique, which is totally WP:RS. There are plenty of other sources which claim that the Venezuelan media played a part in the 2002 coup. I do not see anything problematic here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Article: Americans for Prosperity, also covers the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
Content:
The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group.
Sources:
The Koch brothers' main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group. The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties' congressional campaign arms.
In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFPF is now Koch's primary political-advocacy group.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work=
(
help)In all, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' flagship political operation, alone has aired more than 27,000 ads in a combined nine battleground states, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
{{
cite magazine}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)The Koch brothers' flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day.
A version of this content was added in March, 2015, collaboratively work-shopped on talk, and was recently deleted with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality." I plan to take this content to WP:NPOVN for comment, but before doing so, I am currently seeking comments on the reliability of the sources and the reasonableness of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references. The talk page consensus was that the consensus across multiple RS was strong enough to support WP voice, making in-text attribution unnecessary. Thank you for your time. Hugh ( talk) 00:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Questions
Thank you in advance for your time. Hugh ( talk) 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please can I get some quick opinions on the reliability of these sources and reasonableness of the paraphrase across multiple sources? It looks pretty straightforward to me. Thank you in advance for your time and attention, which I sincerely appreciate. Hugh ( talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
An external links search shows www.jagranjosh.com is linked from hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Its slogan is "simplifying test prep", and there are a lot of exam prep ads in addition to a "current events" section, but I can't tell where the news pieces are even coming from. Brianhe ( talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Edward Snowden#Sunday Times story about whether this source is reliable. You are invited to participate there. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
To my knowledge recent discussions of what one can do with Mondoweiss are not conclusive. The general uninvolved advice is not to use it for facts, but that it can be used depending on context. Some editors persist on removing it on sight, as if there were an iron clear cut consensus not to use it. The most recent case.
At Battle of Jenin I made this edit in the context of suicide bombers sent from that city against Israelis.
One of them, Mohammed Zaidan, survived due to defective equipment and provided a detailed account of his motivations and the decision to adopt this tactic. (ref Dan Cohen, ‘Interview with a suicide bomber,’ Israel/Palestine ,’ Mondoweiss June 25, 2015
It was automatically reverted by User:Averysoda, who is maka mechanical habit about this, regardless of context. He removed a perfectly innocuous use of the same journalist at Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
I restored it, because I can see no clear RSN absolute ban on any mention of Mondoweiss.
this was in turn automatically reverted User:No More Mr Nice Guy
I'd appreciate independent review, at least of this last example. Nishidani ( talk) 07:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
POV-pushing propaganda by unreliable extremely partisan sources.
@ Rhoark: - you stipulate that "The word "blog" has long since ceased to be probative when it comes to identifying reliable sources.", but that does not seem to accurately reflect current Wikipeida POLICY, which states " blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable...."Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs". Your assertion does not seem to be policy based. I might have some sympathy for the argument, were it not for the glaring double standard used by the OP, who routinely removes sources he disapproves of on the ground that they are "not neutral", "crap sources" etc.. - even when they are by recognized (albeit biased) news sources like Artuz 7, and even when the writers are currently active journalists. For example :
This is nothing more than an attempt to game the system. Brad Dyer ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Note: The following 3 comments are replying to a comment user:Nishidani moved past them after his comment was replied to. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
One further example. At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 after reading several, mainly Israeli reports, I duly entered the following notice.
29 June A Palestinian woman, Misoun Mussa (20).[353] from Beit Sahour, stabbed and wounded a 20 year old female IDF soldier in the neck during a security check at the Rachel's crossing checkpoint between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The assailant was arrested, and reportedly confessed that she had approached the checkpoint with the intention of killing a soldier.[354][355][356]
Recently I deleted a good amount of information from Tyus Jones and Jahlil Okafor, claiming that Twitter was an unreliable source. User:TonyTheTiger reverted me and said it can be used in certain situations. Who is correct? Most of the information sourced to Twitter on both articles was rather fluffy anyway. I would revert but I don't want to start a revert war. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it ok to use this source for part of a caption on the Carlos Latuff page saying "The Belgian Education Ministry website offered this cartoon in an exercise for trainee teachers"? Here's the same story in the Forward, and here at JTA. The rest of the caption would be the Belgian site's explanation of what happened from their POV from here.
Apparently some editors feel that "Jewish magazine and Israeli newspapers" are not reliable sources under any circumstances. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 03:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I just want to remind people that this is a forum for getting outside opinion on the subject. If you just want to argue interminably, you can use the talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To address the question posed: The Times of Israel is an on-line news outlet, founded, run and edited by professional journalists, who have previously worked in mainstream newspapers like Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, the Wall Street Journal. It has clear editorial oversight. It is cited by other mainstream, reliable source like The Guardian ( [48]), International Business Times ( [49]) or the Washington Post [50]. I don't see any problem using it to report on a story that was also reported by sources like the Forward or the JTA.
The reason to prefer The Jerusalem Post or The Times of Israel articles over L'Avenir is that the former are in English, and the latter is in French, and this is the English Wikipedia . WP:V, which is policy , says 'because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.' Incidentally, re: your comment of 'Perhaps it is better to wait a bit' - perhaps you did not actually read the sources we are discussing - this is an event from 2 years ago...
The notion that Israeli or Jewish sources are not reliable, per se, on topics of antisemitism or others, is offensive. Editors who hold that position (a) do not understand Wikipedia policy with regards to reliable sources and (b) probably lack the required NPOV editing skills to be editing articles about antisemitism.
The idea that a question about the reliability of Israeli or Jewish sources, in general, or a specific Israeli source on a specific story 'is not a WP:RSN issue at all' is strange, to say the least. Brad Dyer ( talk) 16:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Manuel Valls made a resoundingly firm connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism that other world leaders—and many Jews—are afraid to make. As is his style, he went straight to the point: “Anti-semitism, this old European disease,” he said in a speech, has taken “a new form. It spreads on the Internet, in our popular neighborhoods, with a youth that has lost its points of reference, has no conscience of history, and who hides itself behind a fake anti-Zionism.” [...] Friends of France who have been nauseated by the growing wave of violence against Jews, and appalled by the even more common mainstreaming of anti-Zionism as the socially and intellectually acceptable mask for the crude anti-Semitism of the streets, can take heart from Valls’ words.
Cameron: As well as the new threat of extremist Islamism, there has been an insidious, creeping attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel, which spills over often into anti-Semitism. We have to be very clear about the fact that there is a dangerous line that people keep crossing over. This is a state, a democracy that is recognized by the United Nations, and I don’t think we should be tolerant of this effort at delegitimization. The people who are trying to make the line fuzzy are the delegitimizers. And I have a very clear view, which is that if you disagree with the policies of Israel, fine, say so, but that is never a reason to take that out on Jewish communities. We have to be very clear about threats—this is a dangerous line that people keep crossing over, that says that anti-Zionism is a legitimate form of political discourse.
... it appears to me that there is a basic continuity between classical anti-Semitism and contemporary anti-Zionism which can and should guide us in our search. Both ideologies seek in practice to deprive the Jew of his right to an equal place in the world; to limit his activity and freedom of movement; his human civic and political rights, and even his very right to exist – at least in the more radical formulation. Both anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism imply that the Jews have no claim to be a free independent people like other peoples, to define themselves according to universally acceptable criteria of self-determination, to enjoy the fruits of individual or collective emancipation. Thus both ideologies are built on the negation of Jewish rights and seek to drive the Jews back into a ghetto – whether it is physical or symbolic. The Je4ws must be confined to the status of a pariah nation...
Note: (not only for this discussion)
That's the pity but I see a constant trend of double standards in e-wiki when almost same editors are ready and do try to exclude the most of (pro) Israeli / Jewish sources as being not RS. But their behavior is just opposite when anyone makes the same claims to (pro) Arab / Palestinian sources. A lot of such examples may be found in RSN archives. --
Igorp_lj (
talk) 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for messing up the date: this is indeed from two years ago. I am not sure if the newspapers actually did a follow up to the Belgian government reaction. I cannot find anything. I think the JPost source is fine for use, because it says essentially what the L'Avenir source says, which everyone agrees is WP:RS. Also the information contained in the JPost source is a superset of the other sources. If we simply use that, this whole question about WP:RS can end. Other matters such as weight and NPOV can be discussed on the article talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please join this discussion (linked below) to help decide if any of the proposed sources are suitable to establish the notability of the Inner Terrestrials in the DIY/underground music scene.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 13:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The website http://what-when-how.com/ is a kind of encyclopedia website, that reproduces material from other encyclopedias ( apparently with permission from the publishers). I found its material to indeed be copied, without attribution, from various sources such as the Encyclopedia of Space Science and Technology and Women and War. I still have to find the first of their articles that lists an author or includes references. Since some of the material is supposedly written by "technical writers" for this specific website (I haven't found any credentials), but articles are not labeled as such, I tend not to put too much trust in this site.
Is this website ever a reliable source? It's currently cited in several dozen articles; I've already replaced a few references where I could dig up the original source of the information. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
American Free Press, specifically
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=24918
2. Article.
Michael Collins Piper
3. Content. Michael Collins Piper (July 16, 1960 – May 30, 2015)...
According to various fringe source, Michael Collins Piper, died on or about May 30, 2015. There are no mainstream news sources that have reported on this. Is American Free Press, a far-right paper for which Piper wrote, a reliable source for his date of death? Related discussion a few weeks ago at WP:BLPN. - Location ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Matter is now closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Over on the BLP Noticeboard I am having to field insistence that two sources proving WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy trained with either the PCW Academy or with Carlo Cannon should be accepted, when they are promotional for the wrestling promotions to attract new wrestlers. The PCW Academy claims;
Note that only one real name is used in brackets - Emma's. It also claims above this;
The promotional language is obvious. The MCW website claims;
Almost exactly the same claim as PCW and exactly the same wrestlers. The rest of the link is also promotional. In addition to this, they also attempt to claim the following podcast backs up the second claim. This claim is supposed to be at the 4:42 mark of the podcast, but there is no text back up. Further, the podcast is not run by recognised industry professionals who are independent. According to Josh Armour's Facebook he is nothing more than an announcer for one promotion. According to Todd Eastman's Twitter he is a manager of one particular wrestler, Chris Basso. Could these be reviewed by experienced editors in the context of BLP requirements and professional wrestling who can make a firm judgment on this so we can move forward and stop the argument on the BLP Noticeboard. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 00:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
|
In the Initial claims section of the Ghouta chemical attack article, the following statement is sourced by this RT article.
The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons were politically motivated and that it would go against elementary logic.
An editor tagged it as a unreliable soruce, and describe it as "Russian propaganda", ref. diff. Is the source reliable for this statement according to the identifying reliable sources guideline and the verifiability policy? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
RT is well established (by known reliable sources) as being the propaganda organ of the Russian state. Article in The Economist describes RT:
-- Green C 20:"50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the links/replies. However, the question here is if the given source is reliable for the statement in the described context (according to relevant guidelines and policies). Based on this discussion, I believe most users see RT as reliable according to the guideline, at least for statements like this ("the government said..."). As KoolerStill wrote above "In this case "reliable" means can they be trusted that if they quote somebody saying something, that person actually said it." Erlbaeko ( talk) 17:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand that some users just don't like RT to be used as a source, but this is not a question of personal taste. Nor is it a vote. Even when using RT as a source in the simplest way possible (Mr. x said y), users delete it or tag it as a unreliable source?. I do not see any policy based arguments to do so, and their arguments is not founded in the policy, nor in the guideline. In fact, enforcing a specific non-neutral point of view is against the behavioral guideline of gaming the system.
In this case the source do support the information as it is presented, and it is definitely not and exceptional claim. In fact it is not even a contentious claim. Does anybody doubt he said it? Yes, RT has a bias. That’s fine, according to the biased or opinionated sources section of the guideline. Yes, some of their reporting may be seen as propaganda, but that is true for most news organizations.
What we have here is a well-established news organization that is referring another well-established news organization ( Izvestia). Both is "reliable for statements of fact". That is what the relevant part of the guideline says, and that is what the policy on sourcing says. Erlbaeko ( talk) 14:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
WP consensus has never held RT to be a priori unreliable or reliable: most have argued it can be used for uncontroversial statements of fact (including attribution of official statements), and that for specific contentious issues, discussion is required.
This particular case is a simple case of attribution. The relevant question is not reliability but the editorial question as to whether Assad's statement deserves mention here. Kudzu1 should have known that.
We've had many discussions here about RT as a source. Linking users uninvolved (so far as I know) in the Syria/EastEurope debates, with diffs:
In 2013, Formerip, Elinruby, Itsmejudith, Tom Harrison, AQfK, Blueboar and BorisG voiced different opinions available here: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].
In 2014 there was a very long argument about RT, ultimately closed by a user who is now banned. Nevertheless, Collect, Ubikwit, GRuban, Herzen, Ian.thomson, Kmhkmh, Viriditas, Mjroots, TheBlueCanoe, Carolmooredc, Jytdog, and TFD all contributed, with diffs of their statements here: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Of these users,
This month (June 2015), above, SageRad, TFD, Andrew D., Spumuq and Green C also commented.
At this point, further discussions here on RT's reliability in general, or its reliability for simple statements by officials, or even for perspectives attributed to RT, are a huge waste of time. Controversial facts should be discussed and probably need secondary sources, or contrasting views, or should be avoided. If RT's reliability as a source is not the issue and their perspective is, the appropriate tags are WP:POV and the appropriate forum is WP:NPOVN.
In my view, blanket removal of RT as a source without specific discussion of WP:POV should go to WP:AN or WP:AE. - Darouet ( talk) 22:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
flamewar Rhoark ( talk) 22:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jeez freakin' crust. Just drop it already. It's been discussed to death. Stop beating the dead horse. Stop grinding the axe. Stop grinding the axe into the dead horse. Stop twisting the pencil into the donkey. Stop petting the monkey with a spork. Stop wrench plucking the crow. Stop buttoning the shirt of the gazelle. Stop flea jumping the octopus. Stop sculpting the turnips with a spatula. Stop running with the sea urchins. Don't float the gazebos into the shrimp. Stop ... just stop beating the dead horse please. It's not reliable for 99% of instances where people try to use it and in the 1% where it may be reliable there's better sources out there. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:49, 2 July 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 190 | Archive 191 | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 |
Greetings.
Is The Telegraph article a reliable source regarding this statement [1]
The Azov men use the neo-Nazi Wolfsangel (Wolf’s Hook) symbol on their banner
The unit in question is a neo-Nazi militia that has been reported to commit crimes during the war in Ukraine, and has been condemned by US Congress last week [2]. The Telegraph article is used to support(among other sources like BBC, The Guardian) the use of Wolfsangel symbol by the unit.The Wiki article in question is Fascist symbolism-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 09:19, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
The latter incarnation received media attention in The Washington Post and The Times of London
(1988). "NORTHEAST JOURNAL". New York Times October 23, 1988. Section 1; Part 2, Page 42, Column 4;
There is a discussion on WP:Articles for deletion/Monarchy Party for notability. I believe the article fails verification. Timeraner ( talk) 17:41, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I've twice made edits to the following article: /info/en/?search=Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016
My edits have been reversed and someone is accusing me of being a Sen. Sanders operative. While it's true I support Sen. Sanders, I do so because I am interested in the transparent nature of our democracy. It's the same reason I want to see O'Malley, Chafee, and even Hillary Clinton have proper citations.
Here the gist of the matter:
1. The two articles that make up the lion's share of Hillary Clinton's "endorsements" are not sourced themselves:
http://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/238912-2016-hillary-endorsement-list http://edition.cnn.com/2015/02/02/politics/hillary-clinton-2016-endorsements
2. Here's an example from the CNN article of what the Clinton folks, or people with no sense of our primary process, are trying to pass off as an endorsement:
Sen. Amy Klobuchar of Minnesota - Signed a letter with all other female senators backing a Clinton run
Every Democratic female Senator and Congresswoman signed a letter encouraging Hillary to run. That is not an endorsement of candidacy. All that represents is some people want Hillary to run for the nomination. Those reasons range from wanting a female in the race, those that want as many candidates as possible, or some sense of obligation to a former fellow Congresswoman to show her some semblance of support. Whatever the reasons, these can hardly be interpreted as an endorsement.
Need proof? The CNN article states that Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) signed the same letter for Hillary. However, the Clinton supporters wouldn't dare list Warren as a Hillary endorser since Warren is a well-known politician and anyone who follows American politics and is familiar with Sen. Warren's politics knows that she isn't going to endorse a blue dog moderate like Hillary when more left-leaning candidates are in the race. Lesser known politicians got the copy/paste.
It was not a mistake that Senator Warren was left off the original list since she's likely to support Senator Sanders. However, you don't see her name as a Sanders supporter, do you? No, even though the PAC formed to draft Warren for a presidential run is now supporting Bernie Sanders, she hasn't made a formal endorsement so she's not included in the article.
Congresspeople have campaign events, Facebook pages, Twitter feeds, and a hundred other outlets to where they can definitely give their endorsement. A citation without a source is no endorsement at all.
3. The primary season has barely begun. Many of these citations are dated before any other candidate, even candidate Hillary, entered the race. Let's not forget, much of Hillary's tacit 2008 support jumped ship to Obama before they made any formal endorsement: /info/en/?search=List_of_Hillary_Clinton_2008_presidential_campaign_endorsements /info/en/?search=List_of_Barack_Obama_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2008
If possible, lock this article down and let a seasoned and impartial administrator manage this page. Otherwise, the "inevitability" folks will continue to feed a false narrative. This isn't the place for spin.
Thanks JaskaPDX ( talk) 14:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)JaskaPDX
I know some editors won't welcome yet another discussion. But I think it would be useful to have the following account in our records: a story of how the Mail published a completely false story, obviously without any attempt at verification. To be clear: there is no current issue at an article where an editor is proposing to use the DM as a source -- there might be nothing further to discuss. But again, useful for future reference. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 11:12, 11 June 2015 (UTC)
I used next reference: Edouard Sayous, Histoire générale des Hongrois,British Library, Historical Print Editions, 2012, ISBN 978-1249017387, page 25
The reference was entered in /info/en/?search=Gelou more precide in: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Gelou&diff=668151258&oldid=668146183
Sayous |first=Edouard |year= 2012 |title=Histoire générale des Hongrois, |publisher= British Library, Historical Print Editions, 2012|isbn=978-1249017387|ref=harv}}
Content :
French Edouard Sayous wrote a History of Hungary where affirmed that Gelou land was a Vlach land [1]
Sayous received the prix of French Academy for this work.
Is this a reliable source or not ?
Eurocentral ( talk) 11:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
A site normally used to track album and singles positions on iTunes, http://kworb.net/cc/ustotals.html gave some figures which have been included on multiple articles ( 1, 2, 3, 4, 5) Figures seem to match that of some previously reported, however source its self claims "Aggregate Sales Estimates (United States)", "Exact Soundscan figures have not been incorporated.", "Subtracted sales due to "Complete My Album" are still included." and "Only covers top 200/400 weekly sales for some periods". I'd be strong to suggest it was unreliable, but would like other opinions before I get myself into multiple edit wars with the same author of these additions. Azealia911 talk 20:14, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
This question comes on the back of me just withdrawing Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BNS Durdondo. The issues relate to reliable sources for for the Bangladeshi defence forces. The site http://www.defencebd.com/ is a blogger.com site which may or may not be an official website of the Bangladesh Armed Forces (the primary one is http://www.army.mil.bd/); urls within it don't appear to be stable. Is this a reliable source for articles such as BNS Durdondo. What kinds of things can be sourced to it? Is there a mechanism for auto-pushing those urls into archive.org? Stuartyeates ( talk) 21:52, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I would appreciate some community feedback on Graham Cawthon as a reliable source for professional wrestling.
He has a degree in journalism from Radford University ( [4]).
His work has been featured and cited by Yahoo!, E!, The Wrap, Buzzfeed, The Drudge Report, The Associated Press, The Kansas City Star, The Star (Shelby, NC), and the Gaston (NC) Gazette ( [5]).
He worked for the Shelby Star for a decade, including a role as news editor ( [6]). In 2008, he was one of five journalists in the United States to receive a Shining Star Award from Freedom Communications ( [7]). During his time with the Star, the paper won the North Carolina Press Association's General Excellence Award ( [8]).
In the Acknowledgements section of Andre the Giant: A Legendary Life (Simon & Schuster), author Michael Krugman offers "major gratitude to Graham Cawthon and his invaluable www.thehistoryofwwe.com" ( [9])
Wrestling author Tim Hornbaker has credited Cawthon on multiple occasions. In Legends of Pro Wrestling: 150 Years of Headlocks, Body Slams, and Piledrivers, he states, "Dave Meltzer's groundbreaking Wrestling Observer newsletter was also a valuable resource as well as Graham Cawthon's website, www.thehistoryofwwe.com, which is a must see for any wrestling fan" ( [10]). He also mentions him in Capitol Revolution: The Rise of the McMahon Wrestling Empire (ECW Press) as one of "a number of friends, contributors, and fellow researchers....These knowledgeable individuals were always available to correspond and offered a great deal of assistance in the creation of this project" ( [11]).
His website includes a section that compiles feedback from various authorities in the wrestling industry (wrestlers, journalists, etc.). This features praise from 20 wrestling insiders on the research and information. John Pollock of The Fight Network refers to it as an "excellent resource," and wrestling manager Oliver Humperdink states that the site " has become THE leading resource for wrestling historians" ( [12]).
The website Pro Wrestling Tees sells a shirt that reads "I'm a Graham Cawthon Guy ( [13]).
He is interviewed and and invited to participate in interviews on many wrestling websites, including placetobenation.com ( [14]), Pro Wrestling Torch ( [15]), Larry Fedoruk of News Talk 610 CKTB ( [16]), Online World of Wrestling (http://www.clickwrestle.com/content/podcast-episode/oww-radio-the-rock-returns-guests-graham-cawthon - not linked here because it's apparently blacklisted), Gary Mehaffy of the Wrestling Observer Newsletter ( [17]), and more.
Cawthon's books include forewords written by major figures in the professional wrestling business, including Jim Cornette ( [18]), Bobby Eaton ( [19]), and Tommy Dreamer ( [20]).
I am of the opinion that that above information establishes him as a respected journalist and an expert in the field. My question is whether Cawthon's website (thehistoryofwwe.com) and/or Cawthon's books (self-published through CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform) can be used as reliable sources for professional wrestling match results. GaryColemanFan ( talk) 05:20, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)I recently got into a conflict with another editor when I added Tony Longo in the Deceased Cast Members section in /info/en/?search=List_of_previous_The_Young_and_the_Restless_cast_members. The editor wanted a source that Longo had appeared in the show, and for the given time period and the characters that he played despite that we never put sources for that kind of information since it's only a list article. Ultimately I succeeded to find a source that lived up to all hs demmands but to avoid eventual conflicts in the future I wonder what the policy is. Is it really necessary with source for that kind of information and if it is, can Imdb be considered as a reliable source in this case since it's not a BLP article? DrKilleMoff ( talk) 12:59, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
Jimjilin and I have exhausted discussions at Talk:Michael Kempner at I'd like to get a third party to weigh in. here is the contentious edit:
And cites two Washington Examiner op-eds, http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-like-george-soros-elon-musk-and-warren-buffett-get-rich-off-of-democratic-policies/article/2547924 and http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/democratic-donors-benefit-from-democratic-policies/article/2554908. The issues I have are that:
I have asked Jimjilin to provide a less partisan source and I've tried as well, but without success. Without a source more neutral/reliable than the Examiner op-ed pages, I believe this claim should be moved or reworded to avoid the appearance that there is some quid pro quo arrangement between Kempner and Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mosmof ( talk • contribs) 16:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
It's a reliable source for the author's opinon. The first question to settle is whether this opinion is noteworthy. If not, leave the whole thing out. If it is noteworthy, cite it as the opinion of the source, and use a better source to WP:ASSERT Obama's uninvolvement with light bulbs. Rhoark ( talk) 18:26, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
whether this opinion is noteworthysounds like it's talking about an evaluation of the content of the opinion itself rather than the source. If the only sources are two op ed pieces in the same publication (and the Washington Examiner doesn't exactly have a reputation for neutrality in the first place), it doesn't merit inclusion (especially in a BLP). That's not to say they can never be used, of course -- like Rhoark says an opinion piece is a valid source for that person's opinion -- but it's not enough to introduce an allegation/connection like this. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:14, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
For context, it appears Jimjilin has been edit warring over this specific addition since October, adding more or less the same thing twelve times (an issue for ANI rather than RSN): [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] — Rhododendrites talk \\ 20:20, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I am seeking input on a source, an essay hosted at http://www.philippineupdate.com/ . I am unsure as to whether this essay is a reliable source or not. It cites a reference list, but is not foot noted. Also Philippine Update does not appear to be a professional news organization. It is being used as a reference to content added at the article Moro Rebellion. At best it might be user generated content.-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 03:57, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
A while back I started an article on Single Asian Female, which uses three news articles as secondary sources: a 2006 article from AsianWeek, a 2008 article from the Northwest Asian Weekly, and a 2006 article from the San Francisco Chronicle.
There is a reader at Talk:Single Asian Female who argued that there is a serious omission being made: The article on Single Asian Female doesn't talk about accusations that the comic is itself racist. Many scathing reviews have been made about SAF on internet forums and open Wikis, accusing the comic of being anti-White racist. I actually agree with that accusation. The problem: I can't include this information in the article because it's not covered by Wikipedia:Reliable sources defined by Wikipedia! I attempted to make this clear in the talk page back in 2011 Talk:Single_Asian_Female#On_racism_accusations but I've still gotten an inquiry about this.
Now that the radar has fallen off of the subject (no new reliable sources have been published about this subject), it's difficult to further develop the article. It's a similar problem faced by the editors here: Talk:Citizendium/Archive_4#So_what_and_how_do_we_write_about_this_sort_of_thing.3F.
What do we tell readers who ask about this situation? Should we encourage them to write letters to magazines and newspapers and ask them to publish articles including the info so Wikipedia can include it? WhisperToMe ( talk) 10:20, 19 June 2015 (UTC)
Have a query as to the validity of a cite that is a cut and paste of a Freedom of Request email to a hosting application [37] that has been included in the New Routemaster article. Am thinking this may fail WP:V as not a published cite, but thought it best to clarify. Castroex ( talk) 21:02, 27 June 2015 (UTC)
Given the negative conversation regarding the Daily Mail above and the derisory comments left when some editors have tried to use the Daily Mail as a source, I have a question. If the Daily Mail is reporting a science article and reports this with 100% accuracy, which is the better source to use - the Daily Mail (secondary source) or the original article (primary source)? DrChrissy (talk) 22:54, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
I would not trust the Daily Mail on anything. If it says something about science, the opposite is most probably true. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:32, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Would it be correct then to say "In some cases (where reliability is a concern), a primary source is preferred to a secondary source"?DrChrissy (talk) 15:09, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
The Mail is an excellent source, for paper to put on the nail of the outhouse. It is a bit rough though. - Roxy the non edible dog™ ( resonate) 15:06, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
An editor is making major changes to early (>1000 yrs) History of Rakhine ( [38]), Rakhine people ( [39]) and Rakhine State using single source [40]. I don't think it is a reliable source because (1) the website is closely associated to ARNO with is (frankly speaking) nemesis of Rakhines, and (2) I've fact-checked some of its cited source and the sources don't mean like this. So, I don't think it is a reliable source and want to remove this section. Thank you. Laurence Watcher ( talk) 15:16, 23 June 2015 (UTC)
Per this repeated edit, Guy makes the claim that anything under a particular top-level domain is "bad" and can never be linked: "rm. refspam", "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source." [1] [2]
References
This is simplistic in the extreme. It's the same faulty logic that leads to removing sources because their URL matches /wordpress/
. If that was true, we could have 'bots do all the editing for us. We do not care what the publishing platform is, we care about the content and the reliability of its authors.
In the case of these sources, they're from Ralf Herrmann. He is not well-known, he's a typographer. There are not many well-known typographers. In his field though, his writing and this site are seen as credible sources. Not to a WP:N BLP, but certainly to WP:RS. Nor are the explanatory texts linked "refspam" as Guy has it.
Would http://www.typografie.info be similarly barred? As I understand it, it's the same content as http://typography.guru, but the German language version rather than English.
Your thoughts please. Should we disconnect editorial critical thinking in favour of text pattern matching? Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
May Max Blumenthal be used for wiki articles?
There is an interminable argument ([ Battle of Shujaiyya]) between only a few editors, with regard to his 2 books and articles on the I/P area. He is being consistently removed from any I/P article he is cited on, but his journalism is widely cited throughout Wikipedia articles not directly regarding Israel, on the most varied topic. Part of the issue is touched on above regarding his publishing in Mondoweiss, but only one outside editor has commented there. The problem is more general.
The Occidental Quarterly; The Political Cesspool; Al Akhbar (Lebanon); Cornell Tech; Hal Turner; Regnery Publishing; American Islamic Congress; Justice Sunday; Men of Israel; Andrew Breitbart; Kevin B. MacDonald; David L. Cunningham; Alaskan Independence Party; Judith Reisman; Gatestone Institute; The Washington Times; International Republican Institute; Nina Rosenwald; The Naked Communist; Elim Bible Institute; Anton Chaitkin;* Charles Colson; Group of 184; Constitution Party of Wisconsin; Beer for My Horses; Howard Ahmanson, Jr; Scott Howell; Campaign to Defend the Constitution; Council of Conservative Citizens; Youth With A Mission; Paleoconservatism; Earl Warren; Chris Simcox; Constitution Party (United States); New Life Church (Colorado Springs, Colorado); David Barton (author); Chloé Valdary; 2004 Haitian coup d'état; to cite just a few.
Could independent editors please tell me what is the operative rule here? Is there some ruling that specifies the journalist is RS for hundreds of articles, but his 2 books, one award winning, on Israel are off-limits? Has any other editorial team consistently made such a huge issue of Max Blumenthal's journalism in Wikipedia? Nishidani ( talk) 19:25, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@ No More Mr Nice Guy: If your point is that Blumenthal can be used with attribution, can we do that on the Shujaiyya page, instead of removing him altogether?
To other editors watching this space: my own viewpoint on the talk page is that Blumenthal is reliable in this context because his article and book detailing eyewitness testimony is used together with other sources like UN reports and other media reports, and many points are corrobrated therein. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:27, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Reliability is always in a context. There is no blanket reason material by Max Blumenthal should be considered always or usually unreliable, in or out of the Israel-Palestine topic. Rhoark ( talk) 17:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
By the end of 2008, the 1.5 million residents of the Gaza Strip had been left to fend for themselves. Gaza was surrounded on all sides by Israeli sniper towers, electrified fences, concrete walls, and a naval blockade that prevented fishermen from trawling waters more than 3 kilometers from shore. Weaponized drones hovered overhead night and day, humming an incessant single note dirge that served as a constant reminder of Israeli control. Heeding Israeli government pledges to push Gaza’s economy “to the brink of collapse,” army bureaucrats in Tel Aviv developed complex mathematical formulas to regulate the caloric intake of each person trapped inside the coastal strip. Gazans were forbidden from exporting products and prevented from importing cardamom, potato chips, seeds and nuts, cement, fruit preserves, ginger, fishing nets, notebooks, musical instruments, size A4 paper, and toys.
Blumenthal is a fringe activist who commonly makes equivalences between Israel and Nazi Germany. His views are so toxic that he was roundly condemned in the left-wing publication The Nation, which is consistently critical of Israel [41]. He also compares Israel to ISIL, having coined the hashtag "JSIL" (Jewish State of Israel in the Levant) [42]. He is not reliable for any sort of factual claims and the fact that editors insist on including him as a source shows how much the IP environment has been degraded. Plot Spoiler ( talk) 17:59, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
http://www.orwelltoday.com, specifically
http://www.orwelltoday.com/afghanheroin.shtml
2. Article.
Heroin
3. Content. The cultivation of opium in Afghanistan reached its peak in 1999, when 350 square miles (910 km2) of poppies were sown. The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, a move which cut production by 94 percent. By 2001 only 30 square miles (78 km2) of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles (740 km2), with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more.
The material is likely true, but it is the reliability of the source that I question. The website appears to be the work of Jackie Jura, self-described as "an independent researcher monitoring local, national and international events". I initially removed the source as unreliable ( diff), however, it was reinserted with the following edit summary: "1. There are other more authoritative sources--this isn't necessary or sufficient as a reference. 2. This quotes other reliable sources in its text without huge POV input. This reference is valid." ( diff) Bringing it here for additional opinions. - Location ( talk) 15:18, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Wikipedia | Orwelltoday |
---|---|
The cultivation of opium in Afghanistan reached its peak in 1999, when 350 square miles (910 km2) of poppies were sown. The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, a move which cut production by 94 percent. By 2001 only 30 square miles (78 km2) of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles (740 km2), with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more. | "...The cultivation of opium reached its peak in 1999, when 225,000 acres - 350 square miles - of poppies were sown... The following year the Taliban banned poppy cultivation, declaring it to be "un-Islamic" - a move which cut production by 94 per cent... By 2001 only 30 square miles of land were in use for growing opium poppies. A year later, after American and British troops had removed the Taliban and installed the interim government, the land under cultivation leapt back to 285 square miles, with Afghanistan supplanting Burma to become the world's largest opium producer once more." |
It seems to have got suitable external media coverage, according to Google custom search. Kailash29792 ( talk) 11:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I used an article published on the website Medium as a source, and it was removed for being published on a self-publishing platform, which it was. However, the site is also used for professional publications with editorial staff, which is the case of my source. Further, the author of the article has several other writings on related topics published by established, reliable publishers.
The article in question is "The Transhumanist Who Would Be President" on the blog re:form. The author is Ajai Raj, who has been published by Business Insider, Cosmos Magazine, Popular Science, and Salon. I used it as a source on the Wikipedia page on life extension in the politics section for the following statement:
Zoltan Istvan, founder of the Transhumanist Party, is running for the office of the President of the United States in the 2016 election to give political visibility to ideas such as life extension.
The publication seems to me to have high-quality content. Medium is just a tool, after all, like
WordPress, and not all blogs that use WordPress are unreliable. The main difference is that Medium gives a medium.com
domain name.
Is this source reliable here?
-- Haptic-feedback ( talk) 19:20, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Medium is a platform on which one can self-publish. That doesn't mean everything that can be found there is WP:SPS. In particular, it has a built-in feature for users to set themselves up "publications" which are groupings of users and articles in which there can be editorial control. This does in principle constitute third-party publishing, if there is reason to believe that quality editorial control is actually exercised. This likelihood is improved if:
These all seem to be the case for re:form. I don't discern any reputation, good or bad, for re:form. Some would disqualify a source on that basis, but I don't think that's required. In the absence of reputation, I'd assign reliability but little to no weight. Rhoark ( talk) 21:00, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Major Vandalism on the College tuition in the United States, but since reliability of sources was in question, it was suggested that the discussion be brought here:
One editor has wreaked havoc via a deletion of a huge number of sources that have been discussed vetted, and agreed upon by the community. Some of them have been in there for ages, as a quick review of the edit history will show. In order of appearance on that edit, the sources are as follows: Watts (thirstforjustice), Investopedia, Mockler (NY Times, cited in Tumbler), Collinge (StudentLoanJustice, cited in NY Art World Commentary), Kantrowitz (finaid.org), gcstudent.org, Watson (cited in dailyfinance.com), and collegetips.com.
EVERY one of those sources is credible and reliable, most especially as they are either advocates making suggestions, or reliable news sources, or experts in the field. Let's take a look at each one of them, shall we:
So, if Flyte35 had no problems then, what is the big fuss now? “When the cat's away, the mice will play,” and with ElKebvo, a voice of reason, gone, and the other editor both anonymous and now gone, Flyte35 is “taking over” this article.
Even in Late July of last year (2014), we see no problem with Watts, with Kantrowitz, with USPirg, with Collinge, etc. (And rightfully so: These are all big names in the College Loan Reform advocacy movements!)
In fact, just recently, other editors put Flyte's bizarre behavior in check, as right here, where one editor even said: “(a series of edits removing the Watts source) - If the reliability of the Watts source is what this hinges on, this should probably go to WP:RSN. The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization).”
In this discussion on the talk page of the article in question, we find the following out:
ALL the sources were reliable:
Flyte35 is a vandal, whether his/her intent is good or bad ((and I will assume WP:Good Faith), and he has destroyed this article.
Please take a look. 96.59.141.200 ( talk) 10:02, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
What others of you seem to miss was described by Rhododendrites talk in this reply here. He (or she) said: said: “(a series of edits removing the Watts source) - If the reliability of the Watts source is what this hinges on, this should probably go to WP:RSN. The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization).” While I share your concerns about the Watts post, notice, if you all would two things: First, since Rhododendrites talk makes a good case that this source can be included as an advocate (an assessment with which I agree), then it stands to reason that all the other sources that Flyte35 ( talk) willy-nilly deleted can be also included. (If, as some say, they are more credible than the Watts source on college loan issues, and a good argument for that exists.) Secondly, this may sound a bit biased, but it is what it is: The college loan industry is oppressing many people who are in the age-group of those who edit here, and you are, effectively, shooting yourselves in the foot. Did you see the huge difference that resulted when Flyte35 ( talk) got finished? Did you see all that he/she deleted? Did you even read it? I would recommend that you looks first, at the damage done, and then at version of the page immediately before the damage done, and note the recommendations are just that: recommendations from advocate, not unbiased news experts, who would (of course) not be permitted to weigh in on this head, and then revert accordingly.
I agree with Rhododendrites talk that these sources should be included. Thoughts? Views? 96.59.134.227 ( talk) 17:52, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I just want to chime in because I was mentioned a few times above. As Flyte35 pointed out, I did not say the sources should be included (nor excluded). I said "The source is an amicus brief, which isn't good/neutral enough to make a definitive statement about the law, but seems perfectly appropriate for a "recommendations" section if it comes from a reliable source (the issuing individual/organization). So certainly the amicus briefs issued by, say, the Berkman Center, ACLU, or Stanford Law School are perspectives worth including in a section like this, but I frankly don't know about Watts." -- Certainly not an endorsement, though I guess I can see being misread there. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:51, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
@
71.101.58.56: above you said "96.59.134.227 is correct to describe what I did..."
.
96.59.134.227 actually geolocates to the same part of Florida your IP geolocates to -- and not an urban center. Is this coincidence? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 02:56, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
There are actually two different issues going on here. The first has to do with the issue college tuition not being inflationary. That's really the only thing where reliability is the issue. Watts says college tuition not is not inflationary. Then there's another line, sourced to Investopedia, the Garrett Mockler thing, and the Alan Collinge piece, that should be removed because the authors do not say that.
This is the only thing where the reliability is at issue, and the only thing that's really appropriate for discussion here.
The second issue is actually not relevant to this discussion board, because it doesn't have much to do with source reliability. The section section deleted (sourced to Mark Kantrowitz, the piece called "Cutting College Costs," and the Bruce Watson thing) should just be removed because it's adding personal finance recommendations to an article that's otherwise about policy. I'd be happy to discuss that, but it's not really for this forum. The only part where source reliability is at issue is the "tuition not inflationary" line. For efficiently's sake, and to try to come to resolution, I recommend only discussing that part (Watts, Investopedia, Mockler, Collinge) here. Flyte35 ( talk) 00:12, 25 June 2015 (UTC)
I know that some editors who have followed this thread may have thought that this was a dead issue, but we've reached an impasse on 3 issues, and I (myself, at least) seek your participation in the talk page of this article:
The 2nd item in this list is a Wikipedia:Reliable_sources issue; the 1st and 3rd issues, technically, not (but the other 2 issues remain in dispute as well, so additional input would be welcome).
1. Bankruptcy is loan forgiveness, partial or total - like it or not - and thus Flyte35's suggestion that the section in question "is about loan forgiveness," not bankruptcy, is moot.
2. Flyte35 still claims that the Watts source is not reliable, in spite of the fact that I found a citation to his official blog (and not some " http://thirstforjustice.net yahoo's" blog, which was Flyte35's original complaint, and a valid complain I concede). Moreover, I don't see why Watts is any less reliable? His blog seems to have just as accurate facts and well-sourced, as most other advocates' blogs I've seen: Robert Applebaum or Alan Collinge, for example, both of whom are in the article in question. Please clarify or distinguish here?
3. Even in the much less controversial issue (not involving Watts, Mocker, Applebaum, Collinge, Investopedia, etc.), Flyte35 made this deletion. He said "As I've already explained, the other recommendations are policy recommendations. Those are personal finance recommendations, and inappropriate here.)" in edit comments, but I think these are indeed are good recommendations on how to "address" rising tuition, even if it is, in these cases, by increasing income versus decreasing tuition.
As I said above, I conceded one point about the "thirstforjustice" blog, and made corrections (using Watts' offical blog, which I infer is reliable, since it is from the horse's mouth) and also made language corrections (see recent edits, such as: "(which is a type of partial or total loan forgiveness)," in this edit, here to address his "bankruptcy vs forgiveness" concerns, but we're still at an impasse. I will add one point: #4: while the Watts source is the main one Flyte35 is complaining about, nonetheless, he deleted both these recommendations, discussed in point #3. above, as well as Dr. Mark Kantrowitz, who is a world-renowned expert in Higher Ed. In short, it was not just Watts, but many other sources that were reliable, yet deleted by Flyte35. Your input is sought on these 4 points, particularly the 2nd one. 96.59.148.12 ( talk) 03:48, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
The source in question is this blog post on Foreign Policy's Passport blog:
It has controversial content that has been quoted in articles such as:
Such content includes the quote:
"Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role in facilitating the overthrow of a democratically elected government"
... among other quotes.
The reason I question the reliability of this blog post is since Passport is a blog, sometimes for summer interns of Foreign Policy. The author of the blog post, Katelyn Fossett, was also just an intern at Foreign Policy at the time. According to Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources, "self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable".-- ZiaLater ( talk) 01:01, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
I agree with the points made by Mbinebri. Further, the quote "Never in the history of Latin America had the media played quite so prominent a role...", is linked to Le Monde diplomatique, which is totally WP:RS. There are plenty of other sources which claim that the Venezuelan media played a part in the 2002 coup. I do not see anything problematic here. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 03:42, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Article: Americans for Prosperity, also covers the associated Americans for Prosperity Foundation.
Content:
The Americans for Prosperity Foundation is the Koch brothers’ primary political advocacy group.
Sources:
The Koch brothers' main political arm intends to spend more than $125 million this year on an aggressive ground, air and data operation benefiting conservatives, according to a memo distributed to major donors and sources familiar with the group. The projected budget for Americans for Prosperity would be unprecedented for a private political group in a midterm, and would likely rival even the spending of the Republican and Democratic parties' congressional campaign arms.
In 2004, Koch started a group called the Americans for Prosperity Foundation devoted to personal and economic freedom. AFPF is now Koch's primary political-advocacy group.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |work=
(
help)In all, Americans for Prosperity, the Koch brothers' flagship political operation, alone has aired more than 27,000 ads in a combined nine battleground states, according to Kantar Media/CMAG.
{{
cite magazine}}
: Unknown parameter |agency=
ignored (
help)The Koch brothers' flagship organization, Americans for Prosperity, had an equally stellar Election Day.
A version of this content was added in March, 2015, collaboratively work-shopped on talk, and was recently deleted with an edit summary of "Return article to neutrality." I plan to take this content to WP:NPOVN for comment, but before doing so, I am currently seeking comments on the reliability of the sources and the reasonableness of the paraphrase across multiple reliable source references. The talk page consensus was that the consensus across multiple RS was strong enough to support WP voice, making in-text attribution unnecessary. Thank you for your time. Hugh ( talk) 00:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Questions
Thank you in advance for your time. Hugh ( talk) 17:09, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Please can I get some quick opinions on the reliability of these sources and reasonableness of the paraphrase across multiple sources? It looks pretty straightforward to me. Thank you in advance for your time and attention, which I sincerely appreciate. Hugh ( talk) 20:02, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
An external links search shows www.jagranjosh.com is linked from hundreds of Wikipedia articles. Its slogan is "simplifying test prep", and there are a lot of exam prep ads in addition to a "current events" section, but I can't tell where the news pieces are even coming from. Brianhe ( talk) 20:29, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Edward Snowden#Sunday Times story about whether this source is reliable. You are invited to participate there. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
To my knowledge recent discussions of what one can do with Mondoweiss are not conclusive. The general uninvolved advice is not to use it for facts, but that it can be used depending on context. Some editors persist on removing it on sight, as if there were an iron clear cut consensus not to use it. The most recent case.
At Battle of Jenin I made this edit in the context of suicide bombers sent from that city against Israelis.
One of them, Mohammed Zaidan, survived due to defective equipment and provided a detailed account of his motivations and the decision to adopt this tactic. (ref Dan Cohen, ‘Interview with a suicide bomber,’ Israel/Palestine ,’ Mondoweiss June 25, 2015
It was automatically reverted by User:Averysoda, who is maka mechanical habit about this, regardless of context. He removed a perfectly innocuous use of the same journalist at Timeline of the 2014 Israel–Gaza conflict
I restored it, because I can see no clear RSN absolute ban on any mention of Mondoweiss.
this was in turn automatically reverted User:No More Mr Nice Guy
I'd appreciate independent review, at least of this last example. Nishidani ( talk) 07:16, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
POV-pushing propaganda by unreliable extremely partisan sources.
@ Rhoark: - you stipulate that "The word "blog" has long since ceased to be probative when it comes to identifying reliable sources.", but that does not seem to accurately reflect current Wikipeida POLICY, which states " blogs, personal pages on social networking sites, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable...."Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs". Your assertion does not seem to be policy based. I might have some sympathy for the argument, were it not for the glaring double standard used by the OP, who routinely removes sources he disapproves of on the ground that they are "not neutral", "crap sources" etc.. - even when they are by recognized (albeit biased) news sources like Artuz 7, and even when the writers are currently active journalists. For example :
This is nothing more than an attempt to game the system. Brad Dyer ( talk) 20:25, 26 June 2015 (UTC)
-- Note: The following 3 comments are replying to a comment user:Nishidani moved past them after his comment was replied to. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 20:06, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
One further example. At List of violent incidents in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, January–June 2015 after reading several, mainly Israeli reports, I duly entered the following notice.
29 June A Palestinian woman, Misoun Mussa (20).[353] from Beit Sahour, stabbed and wounded a 20 year old female IDF soldier in the neck during a security check at the Rachel's crossing checkpoint between Jerusalem and Bethlehem. The assailant was arrested, and reportedly confessed that she had approached the checkpoint with the intention of killing a soldier.[354][355][356]
Recently I deleted a good amount of information from Tyus Jones and Jahlil Okafor, claiming that Twitter was an unreliable source. User:TonyTheTiger reverted me and said it can be used in certain situations. Who is correct? Most of the information sourced to Twitter on both articles was rather fluffy anyway. I would revert but I don't want to start a revert war. ~ EDDY ( talk/ contribs)~ 14:35, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Is it ok to use this source for part of a caption on the Carlos Latuff page saying "The Belgian Education Ministry website offered this cartoon in an exercise for trainee teachers"? Here's the same story in the Forward, and here at JTA. The rest of the caption would be the Belgian site's explanation of what happened from their POV from here.
Apparently some editors feel that "Jewish magazine and Israeli newspapers" are not reliable sources under any circumstances. No More Mr Nice Guy ( talk) 03:53, 24 June 2015 (UTC)
I just want to remind people that this is a forum for getting outside opinion on the subject. If you just want to argue interminably, you can use the talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 00:34, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
To address the question posed: The Times of Israel is an on-line news outlet, founded, run and edited by professional journalists, who have previously worked in mainstream newspapers like Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post, the Wall Street Journal. It has clear editorial oversight. It is cited by other mainstream, reliable source like The Guardian ( [48]), International Business Times ( [49]) or the Washington Post [50]. I don't see any problem using it to report on a story that was also reported by sources like the Forward or the JTA.
The reason to prefer The Jerusalem Post or The Times of Israel articles over L'Avenir is that the former are in English, and the latter is in French, and this is the English Wikipedia . WP:V, which is policy , says 'because this is the English-language Wikipedia, English-language sources are preferred over non-English ones whenever English sources of equal quality and relevance are available.' Incidentally, re: your comment of 'Perhaps it is better to wait a bit' - perhaps you did not actually read the sources we are discussing - this is an event from 2 years ago...
The notion that Israeli or Jewish sources are not reliable, per se, on topics of antisemitism or others, is offensive. Editors who hold that position (a) do not understand Wikipedia policy with regards to reliable sources and (b) probably lack the required NPOV editing skills to be editing articles about antisemitism.
The idea that a question about the reliability of Israeli or Jewish sources, in general, or a specific Israeli source on a specific story 'is not a WP:RSN issue at all' is strange, to say the least. Brad Dyer ( talk) 16:03, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
Manuel Valls made a resoundingly firm connection between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism that other world leaders—and many Jews—are afraid to make. As is his style, he went straight to the point: “Anti-semitism, this old European disease,” he said in a speech, has taken “a new form. It spreads on the Internet, in our popular neighborhoods, with a youth that has lost its points of reference, has no conscience of history, and who hides itself behind a fake anti-Zionism.” [...] Friends of France who have been nauseated by the growing wave of violence against Jews, and appalled by the even more common mainstreaming of anti-Zionism as the socially and intellectually acceptable mask for the crude anti-Semitism of the streets, can take heart from Valls’ words.
Cameron: As well as the new threat of extremist Islamism, there has been an insidious, creeping attempt to delegitimize the state of Israel, which spills over often into anti-Semitism. We have to be very clear about the fact that there is a dangerous line that people keep crossing over. This is a state, a democracy that is recognized by the United Nations, and I don’t think we should be tolerant of this effort at delegitimization. The people who are trying to make the line fuzzy are the delegitimizers. And I have a very clear view, which is that if you disagree with the policies of Israel, fine, say so, but that is never a reason to take that out on Jewish communities. We have to be very clear about threats—this is a dangerous line that people keep crossing over, that says that anti-Zionism is a legitimate form of political discourse.
... it appears to me that there is a basic continuity between classical anti-Semitism and contemporary anti-Zionism which can and should guide us in our search. Both ideologies seek in practice to deprive the Jew of his right to an equal place in the world; to limit his activity and freedom of movement; his human civic and political rights, and even his very right to exist – at least in the more radical formulation. Both anti-Semitism and anti-Zionism imply that the Jews have no claim to be a free independent people like other peoples, to define themselves according to universally acceptable criteria of self-determination, to enjoy the fruits of individual or collective emancipation. Thus both ideologies are built on the negation of Jewish rights and seek to drive the Jews back into a ghetto – whether it is physical or symbolic. The Je4ws must be confined to the status of a pariah nation...
Note: (not only for this discussion)
That's the pity but I see a constant trend of double standards in e-wiki when almost same editors are ready and do try to exclude the most of (pro) Israeli / Jewish sources as being not RS. But their behavior is just opposite when anyone makes the same claims to (pro) Arab / Palestinian sources. A lot of such examples may be found in RSN archives. --
Igorp_lj (
talk) 19:36, 29 June 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for messing up the date: this is indeed from two years ago. I am not sure if the newspapers actually did a follow up to the Belgian government reaction. I cannot find anything. I think the JPost source is fine for use, because it says essentially what the L'Avenir source says, which everyone agrees is WP:RS. Also the information contained in the JPost source is a superset of the other sources. If we simply use that, this whole question about WP:RS can end. Other matters such as weight and NPOV can be discussed on the article talk page. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 02:40, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Please join this discussion (linked below) to help decide if any of the proposed sources are suitable to establish the notability of the Inner Terrestrials in the DIY/underground music scene.
-- Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) ( Talk) 13:24, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
The website http://what-when-how.com/ is a kind of encyclopedia website, that reproduces material from other encyclopedias ( apparently with permission from the publishers). I found its material to indeed be copied, without attribution, from various sources such as the Encyclopedia of Space Science and Technology and Women and War. I still have to find the first of their articles that lists an author or includes references. Since some of the material is supposedly written by "technical writers" for this specific website (I haven't found any credentials), but articles are not labeled as such, I tend not to put too much trust in this site.
Is this website ever a reliable source? It's currently cited in several dozen articles; I've already replaced a few references where I could dig up the original source of the information. QVVERTYVS ( hm?) 12:50, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
American Free Press, specifically
http://americanfreepress.net/?p=24918
2. Article.
Michael Collins Piper
3. Content. Michael Collins Piper (July 16, 1960 – May 30, 2015)...
According to various fringe source, Michael Collins Piper, died on or about May 30, 2015. There are no mainstream news sources that have reported on this. Is American Free Press, a far-right paper for which Piper wrote, a reliable source for his date of death? Related discussion a few weeks ago at WP:BLPN. - Location ( talk) 20:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)
Matter is now closed |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Over on the BLP Noticeboard I am having to field insistence that two sources proving WWE developmental wrestler Buddy Murphy trained with either the PCW Academy or with Carlo Cannon should be accepted, when they are promotional for the wrestling promotions to attract new wrestlers. The PCW Academy claims;
Note that only one real name is used in brackets - Emma's. It also claims above this;
The promotional language is obvious. The MCW website claims;
Almost exactly the same claim as PCW and exactly the same wrestlers. The rest of the link is also promotional. In addition to this, they also attempt to claim the following podcast backs up the second claim. This claim is supposed to be at the 4:42 mark of the podcast, but there is no text back up. Further, the podcast is not run by recognised industry professionals who are independent. According to Josh Armour's Facebook he is nothing more than an announcer for one promotion. According to Todd Eastman's Twitter he is a manager of one particular wrestler, Chris Basso. Could these be reviewed by experienced editors in the context of BLP requirements and professional wrestling who can make a firm judgment on this so we can move forward and stop the argument on the BLP Noticeboard. Curse of Fenric ( talk) 00:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
|
In the Initial claims section of the Ghouta chemical attack article, the following statement is sourced by this RT article.
The Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, said the claims that his government had used chemical weapons were politically motivated and that it would go against elementary logic.
An editor tagged it as a unreliable soruce, and describe it as "Russian propaganda", ref. diff. Is the source reliable for this statement according to the identifying reliable sources guideline and the verifiability policy? Erlbaeko ( talk) 07:04, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
RT is well established (by known reliable sources) as being the propaganda organ of the Russian state. Article in The Economist describes RT:
-- Green C 20:"50, 12 June 2015 (UTC)
Thanks for the links/replies. However, the question here is if the given source is reliable for the statement in the described context (according to relevant guidelines and policies). Based on this discussion, I believe most users see RT as reliable according to the guideline, at least for statements like this ("the government said..."). As KoolerStill wrote above "In this case "reliable" means can they be trusted that if they quote somebody saying something, that person actually said it." Erlbaeko ( talk) 17:39, 16 June 2015 (UTC)
I understand that some users just don't like RT to be used as a source, but this is not a question of personal taste. Nor is it a vote. Even when using RT as a source in the simplest way possible (Mr. x said y), users delete it or tag it as a unreliable source?. I do not see any policy based arguments to do so, and their arguments is not founded in the policy, nor in the guideline. In fact, enforcing a specific non-neutral point of view is against the behavioral guideline of gaming the system.
In this case the source do support the information as it is presented, and it is definitely not and exceptional claim. In fact it is not even a contentious claim. Does anybody doubt he said it? Yes, RT has a bias. That’s fine, according to the biased or opinionated sources section of the guideline. Yes, some of their reporting may be seen as propaganda, but that is true for most news organizations.
What we have here is a well-established news organization that is referring another well-established news organization ( Izvestia). Both is "reliable for statements of fact". That is what the relevant part of the guideline says, and that is what the policy on sourcing says. Erlbaeko ( talk) 14:51, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
WP consensus has never held RT to be a priori unreliable or reliable: most have argued it can be used for uncontroversial statements of fact (including attribution of official statements), and that for specific contentious issues, discussion is required.
This particular case is a simple case of attribution. The relevant question is not reliability but the editorial question as to whether Assad's statement deserves mention here. Kudzu1 should have known that.
We've had many discussions here about RT as a source. Linking users uninvolved (so far as I know) in the Syria/EastEurope debates, with diffs:
In 2013, Formerip, Elinruby, Itsmejudith, Tom Harrison, AQfK, Blueboar and BorisG voiced different opinions available here: [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], [58], [59].
In 2014 there was a very long argument about RT, ultimately closed by a user who is now banned. Nevertheless, Collect, Ubikwit, GRuban, Herzen, Ian.thomson, Kmhkmh, Viriditas, Mjroots, TheBlueCanoe, Carolmooredc, Jytdog, and TFD all contributed, with diffs of their statements here: [60], [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67], [68], [69], [70], [71]. Of these users,
This month (June 2015), above, SageRad, TFD, Andrew D., Spumuq and Green C also commented.
At this point, further discussions here on RT's reliability in general, or its reliability for simple statements by officials, or even for perspectives attributed to RT, are a huge waste of time. Controversial facts should be discussed and probably need secondary sources, or contrasting views, or should be avoided. If RT's reliability as a source is not the issue and their perspective is, the appropriate tags are WP:POV and the appropriate forum is WP:NPOVN.
In my view, blanket removal of RT as a source without specific discussion of WP:POV should go to WP:AN or WP:AE. - Darouet ( talk) 22:03, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
flamewar Rhoark ( talk) 22:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Jeez freakin' crust. Just drop it already. It's been discussed to death. Stop beating the dead horse. Stop grinding the axe. Stop grinding the axe into the dead horse. Stop twisting the pencil into the donkey. Stop petting the monkey with a spork. Stop wrench plucking the crow. Stop buttoning the shirt of the gazelle. Stop flea jumping the octopus. Stop sculpting the turnips with a spatula. Stop running with the sea urchins. Don't float the gazebos into the shrimp. Stop ... just stop beating the dead horse please. It's not reliable for 99% of instances where people try to use it and in the 1% where it may be reliable there's better sources out there. Volunteer Marek ( talk) 16:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)
|