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 190 | ← | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | Archive 196 | → | Archive 200 |
The section at Arkaim#Klyosov findings is sourced only to Anatole Klyosov and not to any peer reviewed scientific journal. It's basically fringe and I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Kissan Support Services is Private Limited Company, established in 2006 as a subsidiary of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), Located in Islamabad Capital of Pakistan. The purpose for establishing this subsidiary was to outsource ZTBL’s non core activities which include: Sports Security Services Provision of man power (Clerical & Non-Clerical Staff) Janitorial Services & Canteen Maintenance
The Company Provides Services to Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
An editor is using this source [1] for content in the synopsis section of the documentary The Weight of Chains 2. The author of the piece is 'Radim Panenka' who 'Googles' as being only a contributor to 'user-posted' sites, and who appears to be an activist in the area which the documentary covers.
Parlamentní listy has an entry on Czech WP [2], which Google translate [3] appears to suggest is a mix of monthly print output and user-posted online output. It is not clear which this article is. Some discussion of the source has taken place here Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains_2#Synopsis_..._single_source.
Whilst I appreciate that sources are not required for non-contentious claims in a documentary synopsis, sources, if used should be RS I believe, otherwise a spurious-legitimacy is being given to the content, is this a correct supposition on my part?
Parlamentní listy is used as a source in a very small number of Eng WP articles [4].
The portion that has been found objectionable by some editors is in italics. It was added after the section (already in the body) was duplicated in the lead and then moved to the body. While this source doesn't speak to the GSL article's political concept (nor does it mention the term) it has been accepted as a reliable source for certain statistical figures, but denied for the 40% figure. GSL is a complex political concept that deals with more than simply "guns bought at gun shows", it also deals with gun laws involving background checks.
What "17 states and Washington, D.C. do" ≠ "federal law regarding background checks". Can you list which states these inmates were in when they obtained their weapon, gun show or otherwise, according to this citation? As I stated previously, I'm fine with rewording to reflect the data more accurately, for example "and nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without the need for a background check according to federal law". Excluding it simply because certain states do require background checks for private sales is a red herring in my opinion, no offense. Darknipples ( talk) 22:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The section the cite in question is in, is entitled "Early efforts". The date the report was published is in the quote. I feel a good resolution here is to just include the entire context of the quote, like so..."In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source." Any objections to this, other than age of the report? Darknipples ( talk) 23:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
A couple of editors have argued that Fire.org is not a reliable source because it's "an advocacy organization" and/or "biased", and that the New York Post is "a tabloid". The context of the deletions on that basis are here and here. Looking for feedback/guidance. Mattnad ( talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I would think the Editorial board of the NY times is a reliable source. But I have some disagreement here. What do you think? VictoriaGrayson Talk 01:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ralf Herrmann (personal site) (author bio at foot) is well-known amongst typography geeks and has long run a useful and interesting essay site at http://typografie.info/ which is (AFAIK) the major German language site for discussing such matters. Since February he has split the English language content out to a new site at typography.guru
Recently the
X-height article used a couple of refs by him. These were removed by JzG as
"refspam" and (after prompt restoration by another editor)
with "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source.". When re-added as an EL, JzG has now gone to the extraordinary and I think unprecedented step of blacklisting the entire *.guru
TLD and then moments later
removing the EL as "rm. not a WP:RS". Firstly, those familiar with typography would certainly consider Ralf Herrmann as RS on such matters (read the EL, it' a good discussion of how X-height affects usability, and far more use than the dogmatic but content-free US government ref that remains). Secondly, the rules for RS are not the applicable rules for EL. Nor is RS even a blanket ban on the use of non-RS.
Your thoughts please. I would appreciate comments on whether this URL simply meets RS, because its author does, and the domain name is just not relevant. Secondly, any comments on the unusually thorough nature of its exclusion here. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. This is an update setting a time for the discussion to end as per WP:Discussion notices and a request for wider participation. This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. The RfC proposes a one-sentence addition to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity. The main source for the proposed content is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. Issues in the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines remain in the discussion. Attention from editors with some previous experience the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh ( talk) 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This link is being used in P90X to support the claim that:
Actor Chris Pratt used P90X, alongside activities such as CrossFit, to lose 60 lbs in six months for his role in Guardians of the Galaxy.
I'm not sure if mensfitness.com satisfies either WP:RS or WP:MEDRS. Autarch ( talk) 01:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
At the Alliance Defending Freedom article, a court brief held on the organisation's website [10] is being used for this edit [11] changing "ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their belief that children are best raised by a married mother and father." to " ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their scientific study-supported belief[4] that children are best raised by a married mother and father." I already reverted a change from "belief" to "knowledge" earlier today. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article had over 100 references, the vast majority of which were to its own website, uploaded copies of copyright material, the usual stuff.
In some cases primary sources (court documents etc) were used to support the existence fo the documents. In others (e.g. [13]) primary sources were used in synthesis - "In some ways the victory over sin doctrine is similar to that taught by reformer John Wesley regarding the new birth" referenced to John Wesley's sermon.
Here's a diff with my removals] of what seemt o me to be invalid primary sources, unreliable sources, sources used for synthesis / OR, copyright material hosted off rights owner sites without evidence of permission and so on.
As far as I can tell, this is a tiny, tiny sect that is notable solely for an ongoing dispute with the SDA church over use of the name. I think the article needs more eyes because as far as I can tell the bulk of it is a personal essay drawn from the sect's own publications. I doubt if more than 25% of the content in the article right now can actually be established from reliable independent secondary sources which establish its accuracy, neutrality and significance outside of the sect's own navel-gazing. Guy ( Help!) 08:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a website by International Committee of the Fourth International, a Trotskist organization. Here is an example of publication: [14]. It has been used on a BLP page to discredit work by historian about Trotsky diff. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The WSWS is a good source for socialist opinion, or for news on labor activities. They often send reporters to cover strikes or protests in the United States and elsewhere when other media don't.
In this particular case, the historians' letter and aspects of its content appeared in the mainstream Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung: [15]. It seems like the review by Patenaude would be a place for commentary on Service's bio of Trotsky, if more is needed on his page. - Darouet ( talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
psychologytomorrowmagazine.com appears to be a self-published source for Stanley Siegel's articles removed or rejected from Psychology Today magazine -- this indicates serious reliability problems. See http://stanley-siegel.com/2012/03/31/an-online-magazine-that-openly-explores-the-cutting-edge-of-psychology-for-now-and-tomorrow/ for Seigel's explanation. I don't think it's an acceptable source for anything except Seigel's opinions and his articles' rejection/removal from publication.
I'm being reverted on removing this section discussing penis size in Mr. Big (Sex and the City). The sole source is a an article " Stanley Siegel - Penis Envy: How Size Influences Self-Esteem" ( archive), currently published on the Psychology Tomorrow, and not mentioning the character Mr. Big. Despite the mention of the TV show, its inclusion here makes no sense to me as placed. However, whether the POV that (I think) is being implied is true or not, Siegel's site does not seem to be a credible source for this analysis (if that is what is intended). In my inappropriately suspious tendency, I would suspect promotion, but Linksearch currently shows only one citation, so guess this usage is intended in good faith. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I see Seigel has a list of roles and a degree of authority, as shown on the reference page, on the basis of an authority being to some extent self-regulatory with regards to having an objective opinion for example in his expression of (“Sex in the City,”) where attractive women vocalize their preferences for well-endowed men, it is in his (Seigel's) own interests to posit some kind of reasonable opinion, whether or not he is self-promoting.
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter
so WP:SPS is not an all-encompassing directive for the exclusion of Self-published sources, and especially since he has "40 years experience" in field of psychology, and he is a notable individual, having a wikipedia page devoted to him as a subject.
With regards to the allusion to penis size with "Mr Big" being blindingly obvious or otherwise. Well firstly, it isn't, because those not familiar with the show wouldn't know of the aspect of the story-line including those kinds of topics or themes i.e. sexual preference. Someone might navigate via Mr. Big to the page under debate, to find no indication of a concrete proof of the Mr Big factor being in fact a definite reference to penis size, even though Sex is mentioned in the title, because peoples minds don't always function on cue at the time. Someone working in a different field of thought would need to see the actual info, or else they might not make the connection, since thinking is prioritized for different individuals according to their particular life-styles, and the things they routinely think about. Not everyone has the freedom of thought to make the connection, as easy as it might seem, and counter-intuitive, to think someone would not be able to see Sex in the title and Mr Big are related. Furthermore, every individuals world concept i.e. a persons understanding of the reality of the world as it is might exclude any one person from being able to perceive there is a connection between the two factors, Sex and Mr Big. People from or belonging to Islamic Cultures or more Eastern cultures, those individuals would maybe or likely, not make the connection, which otherwise is thought blindingly obvious by those (more atuned to western ways of thinking). Antrangelos ( talk) 15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently this book, written by Chad Orzel, assistant professor in the department of physics & astronomy at Union College, [16] is being used in Homeopathy to support the claim that "The use of quantum entanglement to explain homeopathy's purported effects is "patent nonsense", as entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second." and also "While entanglement may result in certain aspects of individual subatomic particles acquiring linked quantum states, this does not mean the particles will mirror or duplicate each other, nor cause health-improving transformations." I am concerned that this source does not meet MEDRS as it is a popular science book, not a medical textbook, and am seeking further input on whether this source is reliable and if so how much weight it should be given. Everymorning talk 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
Rodney Stich, specifically
http://www.transoceanairlines.com/
2. Article.
The High and the Mighty (film)
3. Content. "When the exterior and flying sequences were filmed in November, 1953, the airliner was being operated by Oakland, California-based non-scheduled carrier Transocean Airlines..."
Despite the official sounding title of the website, http://www.transoceanairlines.com/ states on the left sidebar: "This site is the effort of Rodney Stich former pilot for Transocean Airlines." In that statement, "Rodney Stich" links to http://www.defraudingamerica.com/stich_bio.html. Four other webpages are linked to at the bottom of the page: http://www.defraudingamerica.com/, http://www.druggingamerica.com/, http://www.unfriendlyskies.com/, and http://www.defraudingamericablog.com/, which disseminate fringe ideas about such things as 9/11 conspiracy theories, Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, and TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories.
I believe there are a few points for consideration. First of all, the only reference to The High and the Mighty on the page is this: "Ernie Gann, the writer of numerous books, including Island in the Sky and thee [sic] High and the Mighty, was one of the pilots for Transocean Airlines." In other words, this is a "failed verification". Secondly, Stich's websites are all self-published. Thirdly, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Stich, he is a non-notable, but prolific author of fringe works. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing him as an expert in aviation. Finally, there are various other much better sources of a less dubious nature that could be used in place of Stich, including the airline's alumni association. I attempted to place a citation to a reliable secondary source published by a third party ( diff), but this was reverted by User:Centpacrr ( diff) with the reasoning that Stich has "demonstrated expertise in a subject". Please comment on the reliability of Stich and whether or not it is preferable to use another. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Stich is NOT a reliable source for anything that needs verification in Wikipedia. I have read several of his books and his bias is rather incredible. While it is true that he writes a lot of "fringe" type of articles, the most important reason why Wiki editors should never use him as a WP:RS, is that he is either incredibly sloppy in his research OR he deliberately alters and/or leaves out highly pertinent information, when he discusses airliner accidents and pilot training.
One example is when he told the story of the takeoff abort accident of a UAL 727-QC freighter at ORD, on March 21, 1968. Anyone reading his book would conclude that plane was not only destroyed by the resulting fire, but that an entire planeload of passengers died as a result. He doesn't say that exactly, but in his usual ravings against United Airlines and their pilot training methods, he fails utterly to mention that there were only 3 on board that FREIGHTER flight, or that two got out with no injury. Only the Captain suffered some injury, as he evacuated. He was treated at the hospital for a short period of time and then released.
I have read many other of Stich's accident summaries and if it serves his purpose to condemn United Airlines pilot training, over and over, he paints a seriously flawed picture of what really happened. He was an FAA on site pilot training inspector at United Airlines for awhile. But, after he continually disrupted UAL's Pilot training schedules, by insisting they employ some of his own special ideas and methods, he was finally removed from that job by the FAA itself. Ever since, he has published as much negative, hateful and distorted diatribes against UAL as he can muster up ("He discovered a practice of hardcore corruption of key people at United Airlines and even worst by people in higher positions within the government agency responsible for aviation safety. People were repeatedly dying—in a horrific manner—because of the continuing corruption." [20]). Virtually every UAL accident that has happened, including the two on 9-11, was caused by illegal and criminal coverups by officials in UAL's flight training dept, according to Stich. It seems that almost everything that he does not like is motivated by some conspiracy against him and his brilliant ideas. Frankly, I don't think he plays with a full deck. EditorASC ( talk) 07:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Is [21] "Back to Weber" (book review) a strong reliable source for the Jeffrey Elman BLP?
This review states
Alas, I am unsure if this book review is a reliable source for that claim of fact, as it would seem a book reviewer would not have fact-checked, or have reason to ever fact-check that claim.
In short - is this book review a strong reliable source for the claim in the BLP
Clearly the book review is a reliable source for the opinions of Dylan Riley (sociologist) (Associate Professor Sociology at UC Berkeley), the reviewer, about the book, but I doubt myself that this applies to any contentious claims of fact about a third party. At best, this would be a tertiary source, as Riley is not noted as a reporter. Opinions thereon? Collect ( talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Elman here. I think the question should be not simply whether a source is reliable, but also for what information it can serve as a reliable source. For example, an op-ed that harshly criticizes Obamacare would be a valid source for the statement "Obamacare has come under harsh criticism for being ineffective" but not for the statement "Obamacare is ineffective." The journal article in this case expresses an analysis and opinion, but this and the additional sources referred to above all derive from a single UT San Diego article. That article was incomplete, and for example did not include reference to other letters I sent to the professor clarifying that I was not threatening him with sanction, prohibiting him from publication, etc. (I sent these when it seemed that he had misunderstood my initial letter.) And because this was a personnel matter under review, I was told by university counsel that it would be improper at that time for me to make public comments. Kk1892 ( talk) 16:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Reading the discussion and the source cited, it seems fine to me as used in the article. All claims come from somewhere. The fact that this claim was considered credible enough to be published by this respectable source is good enough to be used on WP. While Elman's own statement about what happened is fine for discussion, we have to rely on published sources about the situation. This is also a much different case than the example given: an opinion "Obamacare is ineffective", which is vague and subjective, while this refers to a concrete incident. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:OR_-vs-_WP:RS and would appreciate if those who are familiar with these 2 policies/guidelines would chime in. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Over at Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times, there is an editor repeatedly insisting that a listed lap time is referenced to an unreliable source. I've now thrice declined a request to remove the time, so now I'm bringing it here for an evaluation.
For background: it has been reported that the 2015 (some sources say 2016) Shelby GT350R supposedly set a lap time of 7:32.19 at this track. According to BlueEyedSuicide, this time was reported by HorsepowerKings, and then repeated in a large number of automotive publications (many are blogs) based on the HorsepowerKings article. HorsepowerKings is widely viewed as unreliable due to a rumoured lap time for another car they published which was officially refuted by GM some time last year.
However, the HorsepowerKings article on the GT350R specifically cites Evo, a British automotive publication which is widely viewed as authoritative, and which itself is used as a source for many other lap times in this article. Evo's article is here. While EVO stresses that there is no video confirmation and Ford has not confirmed the time, there are many other vehicles in the list lacking video confirmation, Evo has not retracted their article as far as I can tell, and it appears that Ford does not normally confirm this sort of information (as GM and some other manufacturers normally do).
Another source, Jalopnik, has this to say about it: "It's from an unnamed source to HorsepowerKings, which, let's be honest, isn't exactly as reputable a source of information as Evo or Road & Track or what have you." However, as I noted above, Evo is the source, not HorsepowerKings.
Can the GT350R lap time be included? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It would make more sense logically to remove it entirely until said "undisclosed" source proves credible or hard evidence comes afloat to prove said claim. Even the writer of the Evo article is still waiting for video evidence to support the claim, it has been almost eight months since the article was written, and over a year since the GT350R saw its test runs at Nordschleife. It is safe to say that there is never going to be any evidence of this alleged lap time. BlueEyedSuicide ( talk) 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S- I apologize for my ignorance on how to sort and edit my replies!
The following statement is taken directly from the page, none of which the given criteria for this entry has yet been met. "...New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that OEM tires have been used is required." BlueEyedSuicide ( talk) 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your list is more reputable than said "source," which has provided nothing in terms of what would be considered hard evidence or "proof," that this run had ever happened. There is no said date this event happened, no eye witnesses, no named driver and no corporate confirmation by any of Ford or SVT's head executives or chief engineers.
In theory what you are stating is that one could host a blog site, and a fan-made collections of lap times (your source...), claim that a 1981 AMC Gremlin ran a 7:32.4 time around the Nordschleife, and that would be enough for you guys to put on your list. No evidence, no confirmation; and you do not see an issue with this? On what grounds is that at all deemed logical? BlueEyedSuicide ( talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
In most cases Evo magazine concludes their own testing to provide results, in this case Evo is merely stating what they had only heard. The article in its own contradicts itself at the end by saying, "No video evidence of the laptime has been released as of yet. We’ll update here as soon as it has." Which after almost eight months since publication, will more than likely not happen. Several of cars on this list were run before on-board video was the norm, yet they are still backed up by either eyewitness accounts or manufacturer confirmation. Everyone, including Ford has remained mum on the subject. The page itself even declares: "...For new entries, this list requires an official manufacturer’s press release for manufacturer-conducted tests. If the test has been conducted by an independent publication, an article in that publication is required. New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that OEM tires have been used is required." -To which none of yet been supplied on any basis of confirmation. BlueEyedSuicide ( talk) 23:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if LewdGamer is a reliable source NSFW Link. I noticed it was cited in Momiji (Ninja Gaiden), Kasumi (Dead or Alive), and Kasumi (Dead or Alive), but I did not see it listed on the lists here. I just want to make sure if it qualifies as RS or not, so I came here to get consensus from other editors. The content being sourced in the aforementioned articles is as follows (order respective of articles mentioned):
Momiji also appears in Studio FOW's unofficial CGI-animated pornographic film Kunoichi - Broken Princess.[16]
and
Despite warnings from Team Ninja to not do it or no more Dead or Alive games will be released for the PC, modders quickly released a topless version of Momiji in Last Round.[84]
;
...and one fan-made mod for DOA5 modified her training suit to remove most of the clothing.[58]
and
It is a CG-animated production and its full title is KUNOICHI - Broken Princess.[129]
;
Despite a warning from Team Ninja that no more DOA games would be released for the PC if the modding community released DOA5 mods that are not designed for "good and moral" play, nude models of Ayane were quickly created by members of the forum Lustful Illumination.[172]
-- DSA510 Pls No Level Up 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed BoxOfficeIndia is the quoted source for box office collections for a number of hindi movies(including PK). Why are their numbers for Bajrangi Bhaijaan not being considered authentic then ? http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/bajrangibhaijaanclosinginon500croreworldwide#.VbsXEROqr_i Is there an exhaustive list of trusted sources for box office collections for Indian movies ? Sbhowmik89 ( talk) 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to flesh this out quite a bit. The current discussion is about its use at Bajrangi Bhaijaan. Currently that page refers to this source for a 400 crore box office draw (probably a week or more behind). As discussed back in 2008, and still true today, we have zero information about the background of who is behind Box Office India nor any information about their methodology or how they calculate their box office results or any of their general reporting (other than their FAQ statement that they have "sources" which are allegedly more true to actual figures that other alleged "producer figures"). The Box Office India article still has zero information (and little other than crazy inflated numbers about their revenues from terrible sources). Even halfway regular blogs would have some name somewhere attached to them.
The discussion in 2008 was first, whether we should assume that it is reliable and is an expert in the relevant field because it is being used as a source (of box office returns) by various newspapers and other reliable sources or does Wikipedia need something more to determine that a source is considered an expert in the relevant field than its use as a reference. I disagree on the first premise and believe that without some evidence of reliability independently ascertainable, we cannot presume that a source is a reliable source.
Second, the past discussion had numerous individuals who acknowledged that the source does not qualify under our WP:RS guidelines but argued that it should be used because it was being extensively used and/or under the belief that nothing reliable existed and this was the best option. I'd say that the use of a source incorrectly (like we did with IMDb) does not grandfather that source from the RS requirements. Further, in this particular case, we have a current RS (namely the article citing 400 crore) which is probably outdated and not totally reliable but it is a better source than a three-paragraph posting from "Box Office India Trade Network" with no evidence of who that is. I say we wait a few more days until one of the newspapers and more reliable sources provide box office results rather than go around with the daily figures of alleged box offices returns. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
articles affected:
This is more for entertainment than action, but I have to record a wonderful abuse of reliable sources (
diff): From 1901–2000, atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers won 7.1% of the Nobel prizes in chemistry, 8.9% in medicine, and 4.7% in physics. Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry, 65.3% in physics, 62% in medicine and Jews won 17.3% in chemistry, 26.2% in medicine, and 25.9% in physics.
I'm sure the statistics are impecable, but the conclusion is obvious nonsense. Here are the numbers again:
Group | Chemistry | Medicine | Physics |
---|---|---|---|
Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers | 7.1% | 8.9% | 4.7% |
Christians and Jews | 89.8% | 88.2% | 91.2% |
Johnuniq ( talk) 07:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Group | Chemistry | Medicine | Physics |
---|---|---|---|
Atheist & Agnostic | 6.3% | 8.3% | 2.0% |
Freethinkers | 0.8% | 0.6% | 2.7% |
Jewish | 17.3% | 26.2% | 25.9% |
One question... are these categories really mutually exclusive? Can't someone be an agnostic Christian, or an agnostic Jew? Blueboar ( talk) 13:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Something else that would add context to the statistics would be to normalize them according to what percent of people self-identified as each religion (or no religion) at the time the awards were given. Nobel prizes have been given out since around the turn of the 20th century, when it was much less common for people to self-identify as not belonging to a religion. For example, Gallup surveys about religious identification only go back to 1948, but at that point the number that answered that they had no religious affiliation was 2% (vs. 16% in 2014). I'm not saying we should use Gallup for these purposes, especially because I think it only surveyed people in the US, but it further questions just how meaningful the data is. Normalized, it may be that the proportionality (which seems like the likely motivation for including the data in the first place) is significantly different. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Rhododendrites for your excellent post. I have already argued for the book from many angles already (author is an established researcher, publisher is academic and has co-publishing deals with many other academic publishers) and I agree with you quite a bit, but the thing I am noticing is that some people here are making more conclusions than what the source merely says and certainly more than what was written from the stuff in the articles and by these extrapolations they are making their objections. The raw numbers merely show the demographic distribution based on a particular sample and if you think about it most people are interested in the % of stuff on anything (your example above from Gallup on % of US non-religious affiliation or anything like how many scientists believe in God, how many women are in science, etc). Even when one reads demographical data form Pew or Gallup, usually the % are the most important and often cited thing in newspapers, books, social commentaries, etc. In general the raw % are as neutral as one can get and by merely providing the numbers people can get a glimpse of those under the context of the study. The % are usually solid, but the explanations are variable people will come up with their own. and of course the explanations are quote speculative in most cases. When it comes to people's beliefs, they are quite complicated. But Shalev does make some suggestions on possible explanations on p.57-58 so it is not necessarily missing from his analysis. Does this help? Mayan1990 ( talk) 21:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
First, it's important to point out that simply because the author is an established academic doesn't make everything he publishes usable as a source. Published material gets its reputability from the reputation of the publisher in the field; a paper published in a physics journal isn't automatically a useful source for sociological statements like this. Second, the core problem isn't the numbers themselves, it's the implicit assertion of significance to this specific measure (ie. a non-normalized nose-counting percentage check based on this specific timeframe, in these specific religious categories, for these specific Nobel prizes in these specific fields.) This source is not enough to justify the assertion that these numbers are relevant, quite apart from whether they are accurate or not. What do they mean? What are they trying to say? We need a usable secondary source that can analyze them and answer those questions if they're going to be included; and I'm not seeing that here. A secondary concern I'd have, looking over that fairly long list of articles, is that it feels like this one source is being given WP:UNDUE weight by inserting it into as many articles as possible; even if we were to cover the author's opinions on the statistics in one article, many of the articles listed aren't really places where it makes sense. None of these are even physics-related articles -- why was this put in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine? Likewise, just because he mentioned Muslims in passing as part of his numbers, say, doesn't really make this an appropriate thing to include in List of Muslim Nobel laureates. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry.What does that mean? Three quarters of the Nobel prize winners for chemistry had a Christian belief, or were declared Christian in childhood, or were raised in a "Christian" country, or regularly attended a Christian church for worship, or what? I just arbitrarily clicked ten names at Template:Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1901–2000 and searched each article for "Christian". There were no hits (apart from the use of that word as a name). Are our articles missing important information regarding the prize winners, or is the source claiming that 72.5% of them are Christian bogus? What other source verifies the claim? If no other source discusses the matter, why should we? Christian tells us that a "
Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Is it likely that 72.5% of chemistry prize winners satisfied that definition, and if it is true, why do our articles not mention it? Johnuniq ( talk) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I downloaded the wikitext for the 135 articles of the Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry for 1901–2000. The only articles containing the word "Christian" in the wikitext or categories (other than as a name) are:
Six of 135 articles (4.4%) connect a Nobel prize winner for chemistry with Christianity. This is the reliable sources noticeboard where editors are encouraged to think about whether a source is reliable for its claims, and the source says that 72.5% of the 135 winners (97 people) were Christian. Who were the other 91 Christian prize winners? Johnuniq ( talk) 11:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Is CJAD Radio a reliable source? I cannot find any information about editorial oversight on their website. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Is CJAD Radio (specifically this article) a reliable source for discussing the attempts prevent Roosh V from giving a speech in Montreal? The source contain a few controversial, potentially libelous, statements about Roosh V. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
http://www.tributes.com/, specifically
http://www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Louie-Steven-Witt-101899572
2. Article.
Umbrella Man (JFK assassination)
3. Content. Referring to Louie Steven Witt: "Witt died on November 17, 2014."
Looking for additional opinions. I believe this to be one of those sources that is likely accurate, but still unreliable for our purposes. I found a related discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129#Tributes.com. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Is an article on WaPo's Style Blog considered a reliable source for the following statement on Roosh V?
In 2014, The Washington Post named Roosh the "most-hated man on the Internet", writing: "Valizadeh owns the website ReturnofKings.com, which bans 'women and homosexuals' from commenting. Recent articles include the charming '5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,' 'Don’t Work for a Female Boss' and 'Biology Says People on Welfare Should Die.'"
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}} 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested in using this film review [34] from a website called The Digital Fix, in the article By the Bluest of Seas. The website has already been discussed once before on the noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#The Digital Fix), although in that case, only a tentative decision was made. The website was deemed reliable for the specific piece of information that was being cited, largely due to the Terms and Conditions [35] giving a sense of professionalism. However, since those are only applicable to the site's message board, it was taken as conjecture that similarly high standards are applied to the site's articles. Something was also said about the website's editor being "listed in other media capacities when searched for (in google)", though I'm not really sure what was meant by that.
Not discussed was this page [36], which is arguably more relevant. Here, the The Digital Fix describes itself as a "hobbiest site that only just covers the bills" and cannot pay its writers. However, it also specifies that freelance work is, on rare occasions, financially compensated. The website appears to have editorial positions, and its film reviewers are granted access to press screenings.
I'd love to be able to use this review as a source, as it's one of the only ones online for By the Bluest of Seas and is actually quite a bit more in depth than those linked to by Rotten Tomatoes. But I'm on the fence as to whether it meets reliability criteria. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|Jpcase}} to your message, and signing it . -- Jpcase ( talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This http://bonavox.nl/2015/08/heavy-metal-band-mad-max-from-germany-still-going-on-strong has been removed several times. This is the most recent. I'm trying to use it to support the band's date, nothing else. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
We have two articles based on claimed detection of an unexpected spatial clustering in gamma ray burst locations. The sourcing goes back entirely to claims by one research group. The article Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is entirely based on a set of papers by Horvath et al., plus press release style coverage, and Giant GRB Ring is based on a single article in MNRAS by the same group. The papers have few or no citations, and it's not at all clear that the proposed structures are likely to exist in reality. In the absence of solid secondary sources to show that we should believe the papers, should these articles exist? -- Amble ( talk) 22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Are these two sources meet the RS criteria to be used here? Thanks Mhhossein ( talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The reliability of GRG tables for articles on supercentenarians in project World's Oldest People has been discussed here several times in the past but none of the discussions have been closed with a reliability determination. [37] [38] [39] [40] The articles are in need of work but before that can begin, we need to determine whether the GRG tables are reliable sources to support birth/death dates and age claims for articles on supercentenarians, particularly for the "List of" articles such as List of Belgian supercentenarians, List of oldest people by nation, List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of oldest living people, and List of supercentenarians who died in 2014.
There are several tables on the GRG site and the ones most commonly used as sources on Wikipedia are Table E (verified or validated supercentenarians), Table EE (supercentenarians pending validation), and Table I (verified supercentenarians organized by death date). There are also tables listing deaths in each year that are used as sources here. I can't find the validation process on the grg.org site but I think it involves the supercentenarian (or their next of kin) providing three pieces of documentation with the person's birth date which are then researched and validated by GRG researchers. My understanding is that claims may be pending validation because either they not have provided the three pieces of documentation or the documentation has been provided but has not yet been researched or validated. I don't know how much verification goes into verifying death dates.
GRG researchers consider all GRG tables to be reliable but I'm not sure whether they are. I think Table E is probably a reliable source for birth/death dates and age because entries have been fact-checked, whereas Table EE is probably not a reliable source for the same because the entries aren't fully fact-checked and there's no way to know how far along in the process they are. I'm also concerned that the tables are constantly updated and previous versions are not available so it isn't always possible to verify that a name appeared in a previous version of a table, but I don't know whether that affects reliability.
Apologies for the length of this post, and thank you for your help. Ca2james ( talk) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks. This is S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- my expertise is on aging and longevity, and my colleague Dr. Bruce Carnes and I are responsible for having contributed to the development of the modern field of biodemography. I have known the researchers at the Gerontology Research Group since their origins, and I knew Dr. Coles very well. His reputation was/is as a meticulous scientist who was a well established researcher in the field. He conducted more autopsies on centenarians than anyone else on the planet and is/was an internationally recognized expert on aging science -- his reputation is impeccable. It was a terrible loss when he passed away, but some of his work is ongoing by those involved with the GRG. The folks at the GRG involved with verifying the ages of centenarians and super-centenarians are extremely careful in their assessments, and they are recognized by scientists in the field as having provided the most reliable list of verified long-lived people in the world. There is a reason why the media turns their attention to them whenever the oldest person in the world dies -- they maintain the only international database on supercentenarians and near supers in the world that can be trusted to be accurate. I'm happy to provide more details, but for those of us who have been working in the field for more than a quarter of a century, and we've seen just about every ridiculous claim there is, there is something quite refreshing about the trust that can be placed in the people at the GRG to just get it right. I would encourage those at Wikipedia to trust the GRG, and I also encourage people making comments to sign their names. Sjayo ( talk) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjayo ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 August 2015(UTC)
I guess I'm not quite sure exactly how Wikipedia operates. You've asked for advice on whether the tables produced by the GRG are reliable. They are. The people most able to make this determination are not Wikipedia editors with no expertise in aging science; it would be scientists with a long history and track record of working in the very field for which you are seeking advice. If someone doesn't believe that I have expertise in this area, they need only go to my website: sjayolshansky.com and look at my vita. There's plenty of third party affirmation there as well. I've even published on the prospects of becoming a centenarian -- the very topic of this discussion (Olshansky, Carnes, Hayflick, 2012; Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences "Can human biology allow most of us to become centenarians?" doi:10.1093/gerona/gls142). If Wikipedia operates based on the opinions of people with no expertise in the very area for which they are seeking advice, over the very scientists working in the area of interest, then Wikipedia actually has far less value than I thought. Sjayo ( talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
comment It appears that GRG is a very reliable source, and this argument is more about notability.
78.144.214.250 (
talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I had a question about how WP:Reliable sources applies to the map. Is a poll reliable enough to use on a map if it was taken one or two days before the most recent poll? Is the most recent poll the only poll that can be considered reliable and the only one that should be used when coloring a state? Is it WP:OR to conclude that the most recent poll taken in a state isn't the only reliable source and that polls taken a day or two before are also reliable? At what point does a poll become outdated and unreliable when compared to polls that are more recent? Btw, this issue is also being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Prcc27 ( talk) 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The site steamlocomotive.com has now been added three times to the articles Puffing Billy (locomotive) and Stephenson's Rocket. "This site is run by a staff of one part-time person (me). I enjoy steam locomotives and collect information about them. This web site is how I choose to make this information available. " The site has no substantive content, merely a list of surviving examples. http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/searchdb.php?country=UK
Does this site meet RS? Do we need this site? Steam locomotives are hardly short on sources! We can very obviously do so much better than this, for detail and for robust authorship. The two additions are [42] merely duplicating an existing ref and adding nothing. Also for Rocket, [43] "It was also the first successful steam locomotive to run on 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge track." which is a dubious statement on two (somewhat technical aspects). Although arguably correct on one, it's highly misleading to non-expert readers: it's just wrong, and a common misapprehension we have to guard against, to see Stephenson's Rocket as "the first" steam locomotive in almost any way. It was better in some ways (read the article), but it wasn't the first.
Neither of these additions represent an improvement, one is worse as it's now misleading and the source isn't RS for anything.
Raised at User_talk:Jackdude101#Steamlocomotive.com, but the only response was to add them again. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Beatport reliable for genre tag? In the Recess (song) article. 115.164.83.139 ( talk) 23:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Chicago Monitor is "a website associated with the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations" [47] and a front site for CAIR in Chicago, per FrontPage Magazine [48]. The assistant editor at Chicago Monitor is the Communications Coordinator at Cair-Chicago. Having the above in mind, does this source meet RS criteria for adding such a viewpoint in Quds Day aiming to approach NPOV? Mhhossein ( talk) 05:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope a chose an appropriate noticeboard for this message. My concern is that source no. 12 from Greater Romania#Ideology is not correcly cited (the phrase is not about "The Romanian ideology"). The quote exists in the source text [49], but I think it is misued (it does not refer to the ideology of Greater Romania, as a general concept).
The article is not a frequently edited one, so I think that there are big chances to clarify this aspect here than on the article talk page. 79.117.135.199 ( talk) 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It's being claimed at Gregorian calendar by a notorious troll (check Special:Contributions/JoeSperrazza for verification) that these journals are not reliable sources because they are "collections of self - published sources". I fail to see how content published by reputable universities all of which has been peer - reviewed by an editorial board can fall within this category. This is trolling as far as I can see, but I'd be glad for other editors' comments before I denounce it as such. 78.146.213.18 ( talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's the apparent talk page conversation [52] and . While not a journal in technical terms, university vetted publications for basic information tend to be considered very reliable and useful. I'm not sure if that's the case or not here. Is there an online version so we can view the source? I really can't judge reliability at all just seeing a bare reference without information on how to track down the source. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Issue 196.5 - Three more friends
I have three friends, Alan, Bert and Curt. I write an integer greater than zero on the forehead of each of them and I tell them that one of the numbers is the sum of the other two. They take it in turns in alphabetical order to attempt to deduce their own number. The conversation goes as follows:
What are Bert and Curt's numbers?
If we can't cover such material then most problem - solving articles such as Birthday paradox will have to go. 78.146.213.18 ( talk) 12:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The sole objection here is that the content is "self - published by students". However, with an editorial board consisting of three distinguished authors with a combined 96 years in post this clearly is not the case.
Unless anyone has further comments I think we can close this on the basis that the journal is a highly reliable source. 78.146.213.18 ( talk) 11:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
A student published journal is not an RS. Find another source for what you want to include in the article. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 12:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Ibt2010 has cut a couple of Register references on the Faceparty article on the grounds that the Reg is a "tech tabloid" and WP:42 says "not tabloids". Archive threads on the Register as a source seems to come down to whether it's printing opinion or fact, and whether it's covering a subject within the tech industry. Since the sources here ( 1, 2) are both quoting what the Faceparty website said in public statements to its users, and the Wikipedia article isn't doing anything beyond quoting those quotes, this seems okay to me, but I'd appreciate an informed second opinion. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It's off-topic for RSN, but a quick look at the article made me curious about the obviously staged publicity image: File:Peterandreandjordanfplg.jpg. The file info says the shot is from July 2004 and is the "Own work" of User:Ibt2010. I don't see any official release, so is the claim that a general member of the public just happened to snap that at an optimum position and time? Johnuniq ( talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This issue arises out of this post at BLPN. Sorry for the long post, this is a complex issue involving multiple articles.
We have a list article here which lists individuals mentioned in the Venona Cables - basically people who are suspected or have been alleged (with some evidence) to have spied for the Soviets during and after WWII. The list article and many of the articles which are linked from it seem to have been based on the work of historian John Early Haynes: Specifically, this book (co-authored with Harvey Klehr) and this website.
For some of the people on the list, this is not that big a problem; many of them were Soviet spies and there is lots of additional documentation to back that up. For others, however, it is not so simple. See Margietta Voge and Rebecca Getzoff, for example. The problem here is that the person's presence on the list article is only referenced to Haynes' personal, unpublished website, and that in many of the articles linked (like Voge and Getzoff's), the only citation is to Haynes and Klehr's book - which I do not believe is a reliable source for the assertions being made in these articles. Take the article on Voge as an example:
The only source for the assertion that Margietta Voge "worked for the KGB San Francisco office" is Haynes and Klehr's book, which does suggest that she did. The relevant passage is: "Voge, Marietta: née Jirku (see Stidsberg, Augustina). An asset of the San Fancisco KGB. Cover name Daughter." Some might look at that, see that the book is published by Yale Uni Press, and say "case closed, she's a spy!" But we're in a pickle here, and it is nowhere near that simple. Here's why:
"Haynes and Klehr's abject partisanship, however, often leads them to make sweeping, uncorroborated assertions that are not confirmed by the Venona cables." [1]
"This penchant to indict also leads Haynes and Klehr to characterize any contact with Soviet agents and the information that Soviet agents reported to Moscow as 'espionage.' yet the majority of the reported information did not compromise US security interests, including 'analyses and commentary,' reports on the plans of foreign (non-US) officials, simple political intelligence and the monitoring of Trotskyites and Russian emigrées." [1]
"They might have taken into account the tendency of any intelligence officer to exaggerate, for political purposes, the number and importance of agents they are controlling. They might have considered the gray area between serving a foreign power as a 'spy' and informally discussing issues with an ally." [2]
"The book is perhaps most troubling when returning to old charges against bogeymen of the anticommunists. The evidence that Harry Dexter White was an agent for Soviet Intelligence is inconclusive, and the allegations against others such as the White House aide Laughlin Currie are on even shakier ground. (Factual errors in the case of the former Office of Strategic service aide Duncan Lee have been challenged by Lee's family...)" [2]
References
- ^ a b Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes; Harvey Klehr. Review by: Athan Theoharis.The American Historical Review. Vol. 106, No. 1 (Feb., 2001) , pp. 209-210.
- ^ a b Review Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes; Harvey Klehr. Review by: Scott Lucas. The Journal of American History. Vol. 87, No. 3 (Dec., 2000) , p. 1099.
Given that, is being listed in the appendix to Haynes and Klehr's book a good enough source to say that someone worked with the Soviets/was a Soviet spy? Is Haynes' site a good enough source to justify listing someone on the list article when no other source can corroborate it? Personally I would argue the answer is no in both cases; that we should nuke any reference to alleged espionage that is based only on Haynes and Klehr's appendix (if they are discussed in the body of the book, or in other sources it's a different story obviously), and AFD articles where that is the person's only potential claim to notability, like Rebecca Getzoff. But this is a complex issue so I am asking for consensus here before making any changes. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the NSA site contains the translated lists of agents, and are regarded as a reliable source in academic circles (cired many dozens of times, in fact). We could say "according to the Venona project" but the fact is that the NSA sources are reliable per WP:RS, and books published by the Yale University Press are generally accorded RS status as well. Saying "I don't like a source which is absolutely reliable" is a poor basis d=for removing it from any Wikipedia article. Further, that the current use of the Venona documents is now widely accepted - the use of "book reviews" from 2001 and earlier is not supportable here, a lot has been written since. [56], [57] and related documents meet WP:RS. [58], [59] as nauseam. [60] and so on. Note from the NSA site "The translations of messages of Soviet intelligence in Stockholm are particularly rich for their variety and volume: more than 450 messages of the three Soviet services, KGB, GRU, and Naval GRU. Sweden, neutral during World War II, gave the Soviets a valuable listening post concerning German military activities in Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic. Note the great attention to transborder operations: debriefing refugees from Norway and sending Norwegians back to Norway." " Discussion of important KGB agent and Swedish Communist, covername KLARA, who is completely devoted to us." Sorry - the evidence is clear and in reliable sources. Collect ( talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Reviews are slightly malused above: Theoharis is known primarily for doubting that Vassiliev even had notebooks or that he had access at all to any data from the KGB, and that the US code-breaking was due to use of repeated use of pads intended for single use, and not by any cryptologic efforts by the US.. Her also suggested Haynes avoided mentioning an exculpatory item about Alger Hiss, although Theoharis did not seem to find that item in any sources himself. [61]. Better to look at current works McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare Landon R. Y. Storrs; OUP, Jul 2015.
The tenor of debate shifted again when the end of the Cold War made available new evidence from Soviet archives and U.S. intelligence sources such as the VENONA decrypts. That evidence indicated that scholars had underestimated the success of Soviet espionage in the United States as well as the extent of Soviet control over the American Communist Party. Alger Hiss, contrary to what most liberals had believed, and contrary to what he maintained until his death in 1996, was almost certainly guilty of espionage. A few hundred other Americans were secret Communist Party members and shared information with Soviet agents, chiefly during World War II.34 Some historians interpreted the new evidence to put anticommunism in a more sympathetic light and to criticize scholarship on the positive achievements of American Communists.
Professor Scott Lucas states that Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie were named on inconclusive evidence in the book. Cambridge University Press in 2004 saw no problem with the allegations about Currie and White. I find no basis for using him to assess facts brought out after he wrote in the first place (the Vassiliev corroborating material). Collect ( talk) 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) .
Hi, I am new here and working on a draft in my Sandbox on an article about Panama Real Estate which will be the first one for Wikipedia. My question is about using Panama law firms websites where they explain Panama real estate laws to the public. I looked at the archives here and outside of a lawyer's blog where an unknown author posted a blog couldn't be used as a reliable source; I couldn't find past discussions on point.
Here are the text and citations I intend to use:
Many islands, beachfront properties, and special tourism zones real estate such as in Portobelo and Bocas del Toro are owned by the government, which grants rights to possess for specific years. [96] Pardini Law Firm, “Purchasing Property in Panama”, http://www.pardinilaw.com/news.php?newsid=49&p=1&catid=23
Panama’s Ministry of Economy & Finance accepts applications for concessions and will perform an Environmental impact assessment of the property if it is more than one hectare, and will do a Feasibility study for any commercial activities intended for the property. [98] Beth Anne Gray, Panama Attorney, “Application for Concession from the Government”, http://www.lawyers-abogados.net/en/Services/Panama-real-estate-transactions.htm
Real Estate Trusts In 2010, Panama created a new law allowing for Real Estate Trusts, which are based on the U.S. Real estate investment trust (REIT) and made changes to the tax laws in 2014 allowing investors to avoid paying a [[Capital Gains Tax] while the Trust avoids paying income taxes. Small investors can join other investors in forming a Real Estate Trust to purchase real estate to develop and lease. [99] Marielena García Maritano, Morgan & Morgan Panama Law Firm, “Real Estate Trusts in Panama: A New Frontier”, April 23, 2015 https://www.morimor.com/real-estate-trusts-in-panama-the-new-frontier/
Panama banks can issue a "Promise to Pay Letter" to sellers assuring that full payment will be made after the seller files the title deed with the Public Registry. [111] ^Rigoberto Coronado, Mossack Fonseca Panama Law Firm, “Guideline on Purchasing Property in Panama”, November 26, 2013 http://www.mossfon.com/news/mossack-fonseca-provides-guidelines-purchasing-property-panama/
There is a Panama law reducing mortgage interest rates for first time homebuyers by 2% off the market rate and in 2012, a new law increased the maximum value of a qualifying home to $120,000. This law applies to foreigners who are legal residents and first time homebuyers in Panama. [112] Panama Offshore Legal Services, “Panama Preferential Interest Rate for Foreigners”, 2012, http://www.panama-offshore-services.com/panama%e2%80%99s_preferential_interest_rate_law.htm
Lease/Purchase Option Panama laws recognize the right for renters to enter into a Lease with Option to Purchase Contract with their property owners. This is called a Lease With Purchase Option which has benefits including allowing the renter to know the property before purchasing, having partial rental payments used as purchase deposits, and the contract can be registered with the Public Registry which will prevent the owner from selling to other people. [119] Eduardo Achurra M., Pardini & Asociados, “Lease Purchase Contracts”, Pardini Law Firm, http://www.pardinilaw.com/news.php?newsid=202&p=1&catid=23
NOTE: As you can see I am using 6 different Panama law firms who are the leading real estate law firms in Panama. I was not able to find any other reliable sources for these topics.
Please let me know if these can be acceptable reliable sources.
Steven Rich in Panama ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
http://www.crimeflare.com/carders.html is or has been used on CloudFlare and Rescator used to cite "The site uses CloudFlare." and "The service protected various carding sites such ashas been used by Rescator." The source does not seem to be reliable for anything on Wikipedia. Jadeslair ( talk) 02:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there any kind of definition of what constitutes "major media", and if that can be established that there is, then is lack of coverage of an event in "major media" sufficient to exclude mentioning it in Wikipedia under WP:UNDUE?
In other words, can some event be covered by a few smaller or alternative news outlets and still warrant a mention or inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Let's say an event is covered by Democracy Now, the daily news program.
Or, in other terms, is the fact that this is *not* covered in the New York Times or Washington Post or LA Times sufficient grounds, in itself, to say that this event is *not* of enough weight to include in a Wikipedia article?
Is there a list of news sources that *are* "major media"? Or does this distinction make sense but it's a "I know it when i see it" type of thing? Or does this distinction not make sense?
I understand there may be other concerns like WP:RECENTISM for recent events, as well as other considerations in terms of notability of an event, but is the news source not being seen as "major media" enough, in itself, to exclude a reported event from Wikipedia?
I am trying to understand precedent and weight as determined by news sources. If something is in the New York Times, i bet that few people would dispute that it's significant. However, if there a clear definition of what is "major media" and is that a useful yardstick by which to judge weight of an event that is reported?
Thanks for any advice. I would like to keep this abstract, and not point to any specific actual example. I am seeking to understand Wikipedia practice and policy further. SageRad ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The talk on the Monsanto Legal Issues page is what inspired me to ask the general question, but that is NOT the question and i actually resent you asserting that and bringing it into the discussion here. I would like to be able to talk about principles. So, please strike it and talk about principles if you want. This discussion has just become fairly worthless to me because of the redirection to that specific case. Can i even ask a generalized question and discuss it here, please? SageRad ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The same crappy reasoning has just been used here, once again, and that's what i want to elucidate in general terms. There is this assertion that a sources are "blogs masquerading as online newspapers" and continuous reference to "MSM" -- again ,where is that list of what is MSM and what is not? Seriously, i am asking. SageRad ( talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
In regards to an editing dispute on Fred A. Leuchter, is the website Spokeo considered to be a reliable source? See the discusstion at Talk:Fred A. Leuchter for details. BMK ( talk) 22:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
is anybody familiar with the Chinese-language website qq.com? The article " 蓝水海军的中坚:054A护卫舰" is being for the Type 054A frigate infobox. As far as I can tell, the author's name is not given and it gives no indications as to where it got its information. I am also not familiar with the editorial quality of the site (it's not like it's the People's Daily or something republished by the PRC MoD, both of which may put greater effort into verifying claims when it comes to military matters.)
If the source is acceptable, how much weight should be given to it? Should its information be used in the infobox, or should it be confined to the prose as another (unverified?) viewpoint? - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 02:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
(This discussion was started on 14 Aug 2015 at assistance/Requests Kids Company and moved here as the more appropriate noticeboard)
Hello. I hope I'm in the right place. On the
Talk page. A research
study by the the
London School of Economics into Kids Company is being decried by an editor
DeCausa as not from or not a RS. This is not about the figures referenced by the Talk link but about a particular
stating:
...that has now twice been reverted by the editor who has been a substantial editor of the article over the last 10 days. In a substantive exchange on the Talk page where indicated above, on 12&13th August, the Editor claims an article by The Telegraph and an article on the Times Higher Education website crticising the research study (because London School of Economics was paid to conduct the research) makes the report a unreliable/questionable source. My question is two or three-fold;
(1) When an organisation is considered a reliable source, say
Reuters, can articles published by them still be considered untrustworthy/questionable? Equally, if a RS like Reuters published a single unreliable article, would Reuters then automatically be deemd an unreliable source (I hope not) or would the balance of reliable articles they produce keep them in good stead as a RS?
(2) Do articles criticising research necessarily make that research automatically unreliable/questionable. In this case, LSE has robustly defended its own impartiality and that of the article - in the same Telegraph article source saying, "University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research, "This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time".
Although the Times HE and the Telegraph suggest the LSE report is questionable they produce no evidence to back such claims whilst LSE is unequivocal in its own defence.
In the unlikely case that the LSE research is now considered questionable/unreliable, I would like, at least, to include the response from LSE included in the Telegraph. I hope this all makes sense and look forward to your response. The preceding entry was orginally posted by Selector99 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I enter this discussion from outside, and am not particularly conversant with the issues themselves, especially being American and rather far from awareness of the objects of discussion. In particular, I have visibility only to the printed material avail here on WP and in the references given therein, none to how the English media in general (or on video) are presenting the affair. It seems to me that some of the questions that have arisen about WP:RS may hinge on who is saying what and how, and how that is presented in the media, so I have chosen to remain distant from that kind of froth.
First, my impression is that the London School of Economics looks like a very solid RS from the outside. Barring some history of malfeasance I am not aware of, I see no reason that it should be challenged as unreliable in general. In this specific case, it also looks to me that its study, like most studies, did not have the scope "everything about Kids Company", but rather a more limited look at things. Naturally, the media story about the financial collapse has a wider scope, and with typical media imprecision, some commentators began to ask why LSE didn't scope everything out, glossing over the fact that it wasn't their job. (These are the ITV commentators referenced in the World Academic Summit article.) Notably, that WAS article and its companion here, the Telegraph article, do not themselves level accusations of unreliability against the LSE study. Only WAS mentions the ITV commentators, and those are the glossers. As subtext, I perceive some typical media frenzy, probably involving many unmentioned players, the net effect of which is to whip up emotional reactions to a sizable incident, the demise of Kids Co. Now, both WAS and the Telegraph feature prominently the fact that Kids Co funded the LSE study, but no more. LSE is not criticized for that, nor is the study itself. If someone in the media is trying to imply malfeasance by LSE or to undermine the study, they do not say so explicitly in the referenced articles given here. Therefore I cannot agree with user DeCausa that the study is questionable, and coming from an RS, it also should then be considered reliable here. I also disagree with DeCausa's analysis of the study itself, particularly in regard to the statement that Kids Company supported 36,000 children and adults. I wonder if the editors have considered that this is (according to the Telegraph), the number claimed by Kids Company at its closure, whereas the LSE report was done in 2013. But wasn't Kids Company supposed to have grown in the two intervening years? Something's fishy with those numbers, and I don't have the interest to sort it out, but I think we would almost surely have unreliable editing going on until the base facts are cleared up.
With regard to RS in general, I would hold up any media outlet and "news report", done for a continuous, hourly, or daily release, to intense scrutiny with regards to its reporting. Such reporting is by its nature designed to bring what facts can be obtained immediately to its audience, but it is not by its nature equipped to do more than a cursory job of vetting, and is never privy to the luxury of taking a longer or wider view of anything, nor of providing any kind of perspective to the events they describe. By their nature, they are highly questionable as to reliability. Only the highest standards of journalism are acceptable as reliable, and then only as to immediate details and perceptions of the moment. There is no question that there can be no scholarly rigor or balance in any of it; that's not its function. Nor can such sources be considered competent to make any judgements as to the reliability of a report such as the LSE's. For this, the ITV commentators are completely unsuitable. They may reliably report that some actual expert has judged the report to be reliable (or not), but they may not take that job unto themselves. So far, there has been no expert criticism of the LSE report presented here on WP (that I have noticed). The LSE report did list primary findings, and classified them as primary, and regardless how it arrived at the findings (a matter on which we and DeCausa have no business speculating), they stand as primary and as reliable so long as the report itself is not successfully challenged by experts (not media).
Please be aware that I'm not stating that the LSE report had its facts correct. I am saying that the report is reliable and should be used on WP as such. If the report is wrong, there needs to be expert conclusion of wrongness (for whatever reason, conflict of interest, or otherwise), not media innuendo. Then that expert conclusion can also be used as RS.
We are an encyclopedia. We take the long view. We do not report the news, even though we can stay up to date. Some things are given to immediate update (Voyager 1 is now x miles from Earth), and others are not. We can sift this, and wait for confirmation. A WP article should not attempt to keep pace with media's breaking stories. We need to provide perspective on what we talk about, and we therefore need to wait for reliable experts to provide us with the sources that enable us to provide perspective. I would suggest that the unfolding news story might be linked into the article in raw form by providing a kind of addendum section with minimal WP text and references to media reports, simply indicating that there is a story going on presently, and letting the media talk for themselves rather than for WP. (But dump the ITV commentators, who are guilty of overreach.) Evensteven ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Evensteven, for your considered response. It's apparent that you have spent some time familiarising yourself with the Kids Company article and I am grateful for that. That said, the important issue is Wiki guidelines and I think you do well to make reference to these throughout. Also, I absolutely agree that the media are great at finger pointing whilst saying very little or even nothing at all. Selector99 ( talk) 08:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Even the most-cited academic assessments of the charity's workare not useful to this end." The highlighted text is a link to the LSE report. It isn't just that the report has been deprecated by The independent, The Times Higher and the BBC. The report, on its face, has made a number of statements which subsequent RS have contradicted. For example, it says that an increase in the level of management would be a risk to the charity - yet poor management governance (i.e. too light) has been covered by multiple RS as a major problem. I think the maximum we can do with this source is use it to say the LSE report said XYZ, but, so as not to be WP:UNDUE, include the criticism of it with that text. DeCausa ( talk) 12:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
i would also note... that at the present time, the article mentions the existence of the LSE report, but then provides NO information about what it contains.
which is bloody ridiculous; it's like reading a global-ban decision coming from the wmf:office :p
our job is to INFORM USERS about the subject (of an article); if our internal arguements & procedures prevent that, then we have FAILED.
Lx 121 ( talk) 14:08, 19 August 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 190 | ← | Archive 192 | Archive 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | Archive 196 | → | Archive 200 |
The section at Arkaim#Klyosov findings is sourced only to Anatole Klyosov and not to any peer reviewed scientific journal. It's basically fringe and I can't find any discussion of it in reliable sources. Doug Weller ( talk) 14:06, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
Kissan Support Services is Private Limited Company, established in 2006 as a subsidiary of Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL), Located in Islamabad Capital of Pakistan. The purpose for establishing this subsidiary was to outsource ZTBL’s non core activities which include: Sports Security Services Provision of man power (Clerical & Non-Clerical Staff) Janitorial Services & Canteen Maintenance
The Company Provides Services to Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (ZTBL) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]
References
An editor is using this source [1] for content in the synopsis section of the documentary The Weight of Chains 2. The author of the piece is 'Radim Panenka' who 'Googles' as being only a contributor to 'user-posted' sites, and who appears to be an activist in the area which the documentary covers.
Parlamentní listy has an entry on Czech WP [2], which Google translate [3] appears to suggest is a mix of monthly print output and user-posted online output. It is not clear which this article is. Some discussion of the source has taken place here Talk:The_Weight_of_Chains_2#Synopsis_..._single_source.
Whilst I appreciate that sources are not required for non-contentious claims in a documentary synopsis, sources, if used should be RS I believe, otherwise a spurious-legitimacy is being given to the content, is this a correct supposition on my part?
Parlamentní listy is used as a source in a very small number of Eng WP articles [4].
The portion that has been found objectionable by some editors is in italics. It was added after the section (already in the body) was duplicated in the lead and then moved to the body. While this source doesn't speak to the GSL article's political concept (nor does it mention the term) it has been accepted as a reliable source for certain statistical figures, but denied for the 40% figure. GSL is a complex political concept that deals with more than simply "guns bought at gun shows", it also deals with gun laws involving background checks.
What "17 states and Washington, D.C. do" ≠ "federal law regarding background checks". Can you list which states these inmates were in when they obtained their weapon, gun show or otherwise, according to this citation? As I stated previously, I'm fine with rewording to reflect the data more accurately, for example "and nearly 40% of State inmates carrying a firearm obtained the weapon without the need for a background check according to federal law". Excluding it simply because certain states do require background checks for private sales is a red herring in my opinion, no offense. Darknipples ( talk) 22:40, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
The section the cite in question is in, is entitled "Early efforts". The date the report was published is in the quote. I feel a good resolution here is to just include the entire context of the quote, like so..."In 1997 among State inmates possessing a gun, fewer than 2% bought their firearm at a flea market or gun show, about 12% from a retail store or pawnshop, and 80% from family, friends, a street buy, or an illegal source." Any objections to this, other than age of the report? Darknipples ( talk) 23:13, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
A couple of editors have argued that Fire.org is not a reliable source because it's "an advocacy organization" and/or "biased", and that the New York Post is "a tabloid". The context of the deletions on that basis are here and here. Looking for feedback/guidance. Mattnad ( talk) 21:25, 22 July 2015 (UTC)
I would think the Editorial board of the NY times is a reliable source. But I have some disagreement here. What do you think? VictoriaGrayson Talk 01:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Ralf Herrmann (personal site) (author bio at foot) is well-known amongst typography geeks and has long run a useful and interesting essay site at http://typografie.info/ which is (AFAIK) the major German language site for discussing such matters. Since February he has split the English language content out to a new site at typography.guru
Recently the
X-height article used a couple of refs by him. These were removed by JzG as
"refspam" and (after prompt restoration by another editor)
with "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source.". When re-added as an EL, JzG has now gone to the extraordinary and I think unprecedented step of blacklisting the entire *.guru
TLD and then moments later
removing the EL as "rm. not a WP:RS". Firstly, those familiar with typography would certainly consider Ralf Herrmann as RS on such matters (read the EL, it' a good discussion of how X-height affects usability, and far more use than the dogmatic but content-free US government ref that remains). Secondly, the rules for RS are not the applicable rules for EL. Nor is RS even a blanket ban on the use of non-RS.
Your thoughts please. I would appreciate comments on whether this URL simply meets RS, because its author does, and the domain name is just not relevant. Secondly, any comments on the unusually thorough nature of its exclusion here. Andy Dingley ( talk) 15:12, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Americans for Prosperity#Request for comment: $44M of $140M raised by Americans for Prosperity in 2012 election cycle from Koch-related funds. This is an update setting a time for the discussion to end as per WP:Discussion notices and a request for wider participation. This request for comment will most likely close Thursday 6 August 2015. The RfC proposes a one-sentence addition to the "Funding" section of Americans for Prosperity. The main source for the proposed content is a pair of reports in The Washington Post, supported by FactCheck.org and the National Journal. Issues in the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines remain in the discussion. Attention from editors with some previous experience the appropriate application of our sourcing policies and guidelines is respectfully requested. Generous excerpts from the sources are provided in the statement of the RfC question for your convenience. Please help with this important request for comment. Thank you in advance for your time and attention. Hugh ( talk) 16:58, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
This link is being used in P90X to support the claim that:
Actor Chris Pratt used P90X, alongside activities such as CrossFit, to lose 60 lbs in six months for his role in Guardians of the Galaxy.
I'm not sure if mensfitness.com satisfies either WP:RS or WP:MEDRS. Autarch ( talk) 01:23, 28 July 2015 (UTC)
At the Alliance Defending Freedom article, a court brief held on the organisation's website [10] is being used for this edit [11] changing "ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their belief that children are best raised by a married mother and father." to " ADF opposes same-sex marriage and civil unions, as well as adoption by same-sex couples based on their scientific study-supported belief[4] that children are best raised by a married mother and father." I already reverted a change from "belief" to "knowledge" earlier today. Doug Weller ( talk) 20:51, 23 July 2015 (UTC)
Creation Seventh Day Adventist Church ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
This article had over 100 references, the vast majority of which were to its own website, uploaded copies of copyright material, the usual stuff.
In some cases primary sources (court documents etc) were used to support the existence fo the documents. In others (e.g. [13]) primary sources were used in synthesis - "In some ways the victory over sin doctrine is similar to that taught by reformer John Wesley regarding the new birth" referenced to John Wesley's sermon.
Here's a diff with my removals] of what seemt o me to be invalid primary sources, unreliable sources, sources used for synthesis / OR, copyright material hosted off rights owner sites without evidence of permission and so on.
As far as I can tell, this is a tiny, tiny sect that is notable solely for an ongoing dispute with the SDA church over use of the name. I think the article needs more eyes because as far as I can tell the bulk of it is a personal essay drawn from the sect's own publications. I doubt if more than 25% of the content in the article right now can actually be established from reliable independent secondary sources which establish its accuracy, neutrality and significance outside of the sect's own navel-gazing. Guy ( Help!) 08:43, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
This is a website by International Committee of the Fourth International, a Trotskist organization. Here is an example of publication: [14]. It has been used on a BLP page to discredit work by historian about Trotsky diff. My very best wishes ( talk) 20:02, 25 July 2015 (UTC)
The WSWS is a good source for socialist opinion, or for news on labor activities. They often send reporters to cover strikes or protests in the United States and elsewhere when other media don't.
In this particular case, the historians' letter and aspects of its content appeared in the mainstream Swiss daily Neue Zürcher Zeitung: [15]. It seems like the review by Patenaude would be a place for commentary on Service's bio of Trotsky, if more is needed on his page. - Darouet ( talk) 04:24, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
psychologytomorrowmagazine.com appears to be a self-published source for Stanley Siegel's articles removed or rejected from Psychology Today magazine -- this indicates serious reliability problems. See http://stanley-siegel.com/2012/03/31/an-online-magazine-that-openly-explores-the-cutting-edge-of-psychology-for-now-and-tomorrow/ for Seigel's explanation. I don't think it's an acceptable source for anything except Seigel's opinions and his articles' rejection/removal from publication.
I'm being reverted on removing this section discussing penis size in Mr. Big (Sex and the City). The sole source is a an article " Stanley Siegel - Penis Envy: How Size Influences Self-Esteem" ( archive), currently published on the Psychology Tomorrow, and not mentioning the character Mr. Big. Despite the mention of the TV show, its inclusion here makes no sense to me as placed. However, whether the POV that (I think) is being implied is true or not, Siegel's site does not seem to be a credible source for this analysis (if that is what is intended). In my inappropriately suspious tendency, I would suspect promotion, but Linksearch currently shows only one citation, so guess this usage is intended in good faith. / edg ☺ ☭ 11:55, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Well, I see Seigel has a list of roles and a degree of authority, as shown on the reference page, on the basis of an authority being to some extent self-regulatory with regards to having an objective opinion for example in his expression of (“Sex in the City,”) where attractive women vocalize their preferences for well-endowed men, it is in his (Seigel's) own interests to posit some kind of reasonable opinion, whether or not he is self-promoting.
Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter
so WP:SPS is not an all-encompassing directive for the exclusion of Self-published sources, and especially since he has "40 years experience" in field of psychology, and he is a notable individual, having a wikipedia page devoted to him as a subject.
With regards to the allusion to penis size with "Mr Big" being blindingly obvious or otherwise. Well firstly, it isn't, because those not familiar with the show wouldn't know of the aspect of the story-line including those kinds of topics or themes i.e. sexual preference. Someone might navigate via Mr. Big to the page under debate, to find no indication of a concrete proof of the Mr Big factor being in fact a definite reference to penis size, even though Sex is mentioned in the title, because peoples minds don't always function on cue at the time. Someone working in a different field of thought would need to see the actual info, or else they might not make the connection, since thinking is prioritized for different individuals according to their particular life-styles, and the things they routinely think about. Not everyone has the freedom of thought to make the connection, as easy as it might seem, and counter-intuitive, to think someone would not be able to see Sex in the title and Mr Big are related. Furthermore, every individuals world concept i.e. a persons understanding of the reality of the world as it is might exclude any one person from being able to perceive there is a connection between the two factors, Sex and Mr Big. People from or belonging to Islamic Cultures or more Eastern cultures, those individuals would maybe or likely, not make the connection, which otherwise is thought blindingly obvious by those (more atuned to western ways of thinking). Antrangelos ( talk) 15:11, 29 July 2015 (UTC)
Currently this book, written by Chad Orzel, assistant professor in the department of physics & astronomy at Union College, [16] is being used in Homeopathy to support the claim that "The use of quantum entanglement to explain homeopathy's purported effects is "patent nonsense", as entanglement is a delicate state which rarely lasts longer than a fraction of a second." and also "While entanglement may result in certain aspects of individual subatomic particles acquiring linked quantum states, this does not mean the particles will mirror or duplicate each other, nor cause health-improving transformations." I am concerned that this source does not meet MEDRS as it is a popular science book, not a medical textbook, and am seeking further input on whether this source is reliable and if so how much weight it should be given. Everymorning talk 18:06, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
Rodney Stich, specifically
http://www.transoceanairlines.com/
2. Article.
The High and the Mighty (film)
3. Content. "When the exterior and flying sequences were filmed in November, 1953, the airliner was being operated by Oakland, California-based non-scheduled carrier Transocean Airlines..."
Despite the official sounding title of the website, http://www.transoceanairlines.com/ states on the left sidebar: "This site is the effort of Rodney Stich former pilot for Transocean Airlines." In that statement, "Rodney Stich" links to http://www.defraudingamerica.com/stich_bio.html. Four other webpages are linked to at the bottom of the page: http://www.defraudingamerica.com/, http://www.druggingamerica.com/, http://www.unfriendlyskies.com/, and http://www.defraudingamericablog.com/, which disseminate fringe ideas about such things as 9/11 conspiracy theories, Pan Am Flight 103 conspiracy theories, and TWA Flight 800 conspiracy theories.
I believe there are a few points for consideration. First of all, the only reference to The High and the Mighty on the page is this: "Ernie Gann, the writer of numerous books, including Island in the Sky and thee [sic] High and the Mighty, was one of the pilots for Transocean Airlines." In other words, this is a "failed verification". Secondly, Stich's websites are all self-published. Thirdly, per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rodney Stich, he is a non-notable, but prolific author of fringe works. There are no reliable secondary sources discussing him as an expert in aviation. Finally, there are various other much better sources of a less dubious nature that could be used in place of Stich, including the airline's alumni association. I attempted to place a citation to a reliable secondary source published by a third party ( diff), but this was reverted by User:Centpacrr ( diff) with the reasoning that Stich has "demonstrated expertise in a subject". Please comment on the reliability of Stich and whether or not it is preferable to use another. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 02:43, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
I agree that Stich is NOT a reliable source for anything that needs verification in Wikipedia. I have read several of his books and his bias is rather incredible. While it is true that he writes a lot of "fringe" type of articles, the most important reason why Wiki editors should never use him as a WP:RS, is that he is either incredibly sloppy in his research OR he deliberately alters and/or leaves out highly pertinent information, when he discusses airliner accidents and pilot training.
One example is when he told the story of the takeoff abort accident of a UAL 727-QC freighter at ORD, on March 21, 1968. Anyone reading his book would conclude that plane was not only destroyed by the resulting fire, but that an entire planeload of passengers died as a result. He doesn't say that exactly, but in his usual ravings against United Airlines and their pilot training methods, he fails utterly to mention that there were only 3 on board that FREIGHTER flight, or that two got out with no injury. Only the Captain suffered some injury, as he evacuated. He was treated at the hospital for a short period of time and then released.
I have read many other of Stich's accident summaries and if it serves his purpose to condemn United Airlines pilot training, over and over, he paints a seriously flawed picture of what really happened. He was an FAA on site pilot training inspector at United Airlines for awhile. But, after he continually disrupted UAL's Pilot training schedules, by insisting they employ some of his own special ideas and methods, he was finally removed from that job by the FAA itself. Ever since, he has published as much negative, hateful and distorted diatribes against UAL as he can muster up ("He discovered a practice of hardcore corruption of key people at United Airlines and even worst by people in higher positions within the government agency responsible for aviation safety. People were repeatedly dying—in a horrific manner—because of the continuing corruption." [20]). Virtually every UAL accident that has happened, including the two on 9-11, was caused by illegal and criminal coverups by officials in UAL's flight training dept, according to Stich. It seems that almost everything that he does not like is motivated by some conspiracy against him and his brilliant ideas. Frankly, I don't think he plays with a full deck. EditorASC ( talk) 07:13, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
Is [21] "Back to Weber" (book review) a strong reliable source for the Jeffrey Elman BLP?
This review states
Alas, I am unsure if this book review is a reliable source for that claim of fact, as it would seem a book reviewer would not have fact-checked, or have reason to ever fact-check that claim.
In short - is this book review a strong reliable source for the claim in the BLP
Clearly the book review is a reliable source for the opinions of Dylan Riley (sociologist) (Associate Professor Sociology at UC Berkeley), the reviewer, about the book, but I doubt myself that this applies to any contentious claims of fact about a third party. At best, this would be a tertiary source, as Riley is not noted as a reporter. Opinions thereon? Collect ( talk) 20:09, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Elman here. I think the question should be not simply whether a source is reliable, but also for what information it can serve as a reliable source. For example, an op-ed that harshly criticizes Obamacare would be a valid source for the statement "Obamacare has come under harsh criticism for being ineffective" but not for the statement "Obamacare is ineffective." The journal article in this case expresses an analysis and opinion, but this and the additional sources referred to above all derive from a single UT San Diego article. That article was incomplete, and for example did not include reference to other letters I sent to the professor clarifying that I was not threatening him with sanction, prohibiting him from publication, etc. (I sent these when it seemed that he had misunderstood my initial letter.) And because this was a personnel matter under review, I was told by university counsel that it would be improper at that time for me to make public comments. Kk1892 ( talk) 16:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
Reading the discussion and the source cited, it seems fine to me as used in the article. All claims come from somewhere. The fact that this claim was considered credible enough to be published by this respectable source is good enough to be used on WP. While Elman's own statement about what happened is fine for discussion, we have to rely on published sources about the situation. This is also a much different case than the example given: an opinion "Obamacare is ineffective", which is vague and subjective, while this refers to a concrete incident. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 10:31, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I started a discussion thread at Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#WP:OR_-vs-_WP:RS and would appreciate if those who are familiar with these 2 policies/guidelines would chime in. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 17:59, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Over at Talk:List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times, there is an editor repeatedly insisting that a listed lap time is referenced to an unreliable source. I've now thrice declined a request to remove the time, so now I'm bringing it here for an evaluation.
For background: it has been reported that the 2015 (some sources say 2016) Shelby GT350R supposedly set a lap time of 7:32.19 at this track. According to BlueEyedSuicide, this time was reported by HorsepowerKings, and then repeated in a large number of automotive publications (many are blogs) based on the HorsepowerKings article. HorsepowerKings is widely viewed as unreliable due to a rumoured lap time for another car they published which was officially refuted by GM some time last year.
However, the HorsepowerKings article on the GT350R specifically cites Evo, a British automotive publication which is widely viewed as authoritative, and which itself is used as a source for many other lap times in this article. Evo's article is here. While EVO stresses that there is no video confirmation and Ford has not confirmed the time, there are many other vehicles in the list lacking video confirmation, Evo has not retracted their article as far as I can tell, and it appears that Ford does not normally confirm this sort of information (as GM and some other manufacturers normally do).
Another source, Jalopnik, has this to say about it: "It's from an unnamed source to HorsepowerKings, which, let's be honest, isn't exactly as reputable a source of information as Evo or Road & Track or what have you." However, as I noted above, Evo is the source, not HorsepowerKings.
Can the GT350R lap time be included? Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 14:32, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
It would make more sense logically to remove it entirely until said "undisclosed" source proves credible or hard evidence comes afloat to prove said claim. Even the writer of the Evo article is still waiting for video evidence to support the claim, it has been almost eight months since the article was written, and over a year since the GT350R saw its test runs at Nordschleife. It is safe to say that there is never going to be any evidence of this alleged lap time. BlueEyedSuicide ( talk) 22:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
P.S- I apologize for my ignorance on how to sort and edit my replies!
The following statement is taken directly from the page, none of which the given criteria for this entry has yet been met. "...New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that OEM tires have been used is required." BlueEyedSuicide ( talk) 22:49, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Your list is more reputable than said "source," which has provided nothing in terms of what would be considered hard evidence or "proof," that this run had ever happened. There is no said date this event happened, no eye witnesses, no named driver and no corporate confirmation by any of Ford or SVT's head executives or chief engineers.
In theory what you are stating is that one could host a blog site, and a fan-made collections of lap times (your source...), claim that a 1981 AMC Gremlin ran a 7:32.4 time around the Nordschleife, and that would be enough for you guys to put on your list. No evidence, no confirmation; and you do not see an issue with this? On what grounds is that at all deemed logical? BlueEyedSuicide ( talk) 20:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
In most cases Evo magazine concludes their own testing to provide results, in this case Evo is merely stating what they had only heard. The article in its own contradicts itself at the end by saying, "No video evidence of the laptime has been released as of yet. We’ll update here as soon as it has." Which after almost eight months since publication, will more than likely not happen. Several of cars on this list were run before on-board video was the norm, yet they are still backed up by either eyewitness accounts or manufacturer confirmation. Everyone, including Ford has remained mum on the subject. The page itself even declares: "...For new entries, this list requires an official manufacturer’s press release for manufacturer-conducted tests. If the test has been conducted by an independent publication, an article in that publication is required. New entries require an original, uncut on-board video, showing the lap and the timing from start to finish. A statement that OEM tires have been used is required." -To which none of yet been supplied on any basis of confirmation. BlueEyedSuicide ( talk) 23:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering if LewdGamer is a reliable source NSFW Link. I noticed it was cited in Momiji (Ninja Gaiden), Kasumi (Dead or Alive), and Kasumi (Dead or Alive), but I did not see it listed on the lists here. I just want to make sure if it qualifies as RS or not, so I came here to get consensus from other editors. The content being sourced in the aforementioned articles is as follows (order respective of articles mentioned):
Momiji also appears in Studio FOW's unofficial CGI-animated pornographic film Kunoichi - Broken Princess.[16]
and
Despite warnings from Team Ninja to not do it or no more Dead or Alive games will be released for the PC, modders quickly released a topless version of Momiji in Last Round.[84]
;
...and one fan-made mod for DOA5 modified her training suit to remove most of the clothing.[58]
and
It is a CG-animated production and its full title is KUNOICHI - Broken Princess.[129]
;
Despite a warning from Team Ninja that no more DOA games would be released for the PC if the modding community released DOA5 mods that are not designed for "good and moral" play, nude models of Ayane were quickly created by members of the forum Lustful Illumination.[172]
-- DSA510 Pls No Level Up 00:16, 26 July 2015 (UTC)
I've noticed BoxOfficeIndia is the quoted source for box office collections for a number of hindi movies(including PK). Why are their numbers for Bajrangi Bhaijaan not being considered authentic then ? http://www.boxofficeindia.com/Details/art_detail/bajrangibhaijaanclosinginon500croreworldwide#.VbsXEROqr_i Is there an exhaustive list of trusted sources for box office collections for Indian movies ? Sbhowmik89 ( talk) 14:08, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
I'm going to flesh this out quite a bit. The current discussion is about its use at Bajrangi Bhaijaan. Currently that page refers to this source for a 400 crore box office draw (probably a week or more behind). As discussed back in 2008, and still true today, we have zero information about the background of who is behind Box Office India nor any information about their methodology or how they calculate their box office results or any of their general reporting (other than their FAQ statement that they have "sources" which are allegedly more true to actual figures that other alleged "producer figures"). The Box Office India article still has zero information (and little other than crazy inflated numbers about their revenues from terrible sources). Even halfway regular blogs would have some name somewhere attached to them.
The discussion in 2008 was first, whether we should assume that it is reliable and is an expert in the relevant field because it is being used as a source (of box office returns) by various newspapers and other reliable sources or does Wikipedia need something more to determine that a source is considered an expert in the relevant field than its use as a reference. I disagree on the first premise and believe that without some evidence of reliability independently ascertainable, we cannot presume that a source is a reliable source.
Second, the past discussion had numerous individuals who acknowledged that the source does not qualify under our WP:RS guidelines but argued that it should be used because it was being extensively used and/or under the belief that nothing reliable existed and this was the best option. I'd say that the use of a source incorrectly (like we did with IMDb) does not grandfather that source from the RS requirements. Further, in this particular case, we have a current RS (namely the article citing 400 crore) which is probably outdated and not totally reliable but it is a better source than a three-paragraph posting from "Box Office India Trade Network" with no evidence of who that is. I say we wait a few more days until one of the newspapers and more reliable sources provide box office results rather than go around with the daily figures of alleged box offices returns. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 07:52, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
articles affected:
This is more for entertainment than action, but I have to record a wonderful abuse of reliable sources (
diff): From 1901–2000, atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers won 7.1% of the Nobel prizes in chemistry, 8.9% in medicine, and 4.7% in physics. Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry, 65.3% in physics, 62% in medicine and Jews won 17.3% in chemistry, 26.2% in medicine, and 25.9% in physics.
I'm sure the statistics are impecable, but the conclusion is obvious nonsense. Here are the numbers again:
Group | Chemistry | Medicine | Physics |
---|---|---|---|
Atheists, agnostics, and freethinkers | 7.1% | 8.9% | 4.7% |
Christians and Jews | 89.8% | 88.2% | 91.2% |
Johnuniq ( talk) 07:17, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Group | Chemistry | Medicine | Physics |
---|---|---|---|
Atheist & Agnostic | 6.3% | 8.3% | 2.0% |
Freethinkers | 0.8% | 0.6% | 2.7% |
Jewish | 17.3% | 26.2% | 25.9% |
One question... are these categories really mutually exclusive? Can't someone be an agnostic Christian, or an agnostic Jew? Blueboar ( talk) 13:23, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Something else that would add context to the statistics would be to normalize them according to what percent of people self-identified as each religion (or no religion) at the time the awards were given. Nobel prizes have been given out since around the turn of the 20th century, when it was much less common for people to self-identify as not belonging to a religion. For example, Gallup surveys about religious identification only go back to 1948, but at that point the number that answered that they had no religious affiliation was 2% (vs. 16% in 2014). I'm not saying we should use Gallup for these purposes, especially because I think it only surveyed people in the US, but it further questions just how meaningful the data is. Normalized, it may be that the proportionality (which seems like the likely motivation for including the data in the first place) is significantly different. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:59, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you Rhododendrites for your excellent post. I have already argued for the book from many angles already (author is an established researcher, publisher is academic and has co-publishing deals with many other academic publishers) and I agree with you quite a bit, but the thing I am noticing is that some people here are making more conclusions than what the source merely says and certainly more than what was written from the stuff in the articles and by these extrapolations they are making their objections. The raw numbers merely show the demographic distribution based on a particular sample and if you think about it most people are interested in the % of stuff on anything (your example above from Gallup on % of US non-religious affiliation or anything like how many scientists believe in God, how many women are in science, etc). Even when one reads demographical data form Pew or Gallup, usually the % are the most important and often cited thing in newspapers, books, social commentaries, etc. In general the raw % are as neutral as one can get and by merely providing the numbers people can get a glimpse of those under the context of the study. The % are usually solid, but the explanations are variable people will come up with their own. and of course the explanations are quote speculative in most cases. When it comes to people's beliefs, they are quite complicated. But Shalev does make some suggestions on possible explanations on p.57-58 so it is not necessarily missing from his analysis. Does this help? Mayan1990 ( talk) 21:34, 1 August 2015 (UTC)
First, it's important to point out that simply because the author is an established academic doesn't make everything he publishes usable as a source. Published material gets its reputability from the reputation of the publisher in the field; a paper published in a physics journal isn't automatically a useful source for sociological statements like this. Second, the core problem isn't the numbers themselves, it's the implicit assertion of significance to this specific measure (ie. a non-normalized nose-counting percentage check based on this specific timeframe, in these specific religious categories, for these specific Nobel prizes in these specific fields.) This source is not enough to justify the assertion that these numbers are relevant, quite apart from whether they are accurate or not. What do they mean? What are they trying to say? We need a usable secondary source that can analyze them and answer those questions if they're going to be included; and I'm not seeing that here. A secondary concern I'd have, looking over that fairly long list of articles, is that it feels like this one source is being given WP:UNDUE weight by inserting it into as many articles as possible; even if we were to cover the author's opinions on the statistics in one article, many of the articles listed aren't really places where it makes sense. None of these are even physics-related articles -- why was this put in Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine? Likewise, just because he mentioned Muslims in passing as part of his numbers, say, doesn't really make this an appropriate thing to include in List of Muslim Nobel laureates. -- Aquillion ( talk) 05:59, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Christians won 72.5% of the prizes in chemistry.What does that mean? Three quarters of the Nobel prize winners for chemistry had a Christian belief, or were declared Christian in childhood, or were raised in a "Christian" country, or regularly attended a Christian church for worship, or what? I just arbitrarily clicked ten names at Template:Nobel Prize in Chemistry for 1901–2000 and searched each article for "Christian". There were no hits (apart from the use of that word as a name). Are our articles missing important information regarding the prize winners, or is the source claiming that 72.5% of them are Christian bogus? What other source verifies the claim? If no other source discusses the matter, why should we? Christian tells us that a "
Christian is a person who adheres to Christianity, an Abrahamic, monotheistic religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth." Is it likely that 72.5% of chemistry prize winners satisfied that definition, and if it is true, why do our articles not mention it? Johnuniq ( talk) 10:09, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
I downloaded the wikitext for the 135 articles of the Nobel Prize winners in Chemistry for 1901–2000. The only articles containing the word "Christian" in the wikitext or categories (other than as a name) are:
Six of 135 articles (4.4%) connect a Nobel prize winner for chemistry with Christianity. This is the reliable sources noticeboard where editors are encouraged to think about whether a source is reliable for its claims, and the source says that 72.5% of the 135 winners (97 people) were Christian. Who were the other 91 Christian prize winners? Johnuniq ( talk) 11:28, 3 August 2015 (UTC)
Is CJAD Radio a reliable source? I cannot find any information about editorial oversight on their website. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 16:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Is CJAD Radio (specifically this article) a reliable source for discussing the attempts prevent Roosh V from giving a speech in Montreal? The source contain a few controversial, potentially libelous, statements about Roosh V. EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 19:37, 6 August 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
http://www.tributes.com/, specifically
http://www.tributes.com/obituary/show/Louie-Steven-Witt-101899572
2. Article.
Umbrella Man (JFK assassination)
3. Content. Referring to Louie Steven Witt: "Witt died on November 17, 2014."
Looking for additional opinions. I believe this to be one of those sources that is likely accurate, but still unreliable for our purposes. I found a related discussion in Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 129#Tributes.com. Thanks! - Location ( talk) 18:17, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
Is an article on WaPo's Style Blog considered a reliable source for the following statement on Roosh V?
In 2014, The Washington Post named Roosh the "most-hated man on the Internet", writing: "Valizadeh owns the website ReturnofKings.com, which bans 'women and homosexuals' from commenting. Recent articles include the charming '5 Reasons to Date a Girl With an Eating Disorder,' 'Don’t Work for a Female Boss' and 'Biology Says People on Welfare Should Die.'"
EvergreenFir
(talk) Please {{
re}} 16:31, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm interested in using this film review [34] from a website called The Digital Fix, in the article By the Bluest of Seas. The website has already been discussed once before on the noticeboard (see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 123#The Digital Fix), although in that case, only a tentative decision was made. The website was deemed reliable for the specific piece of information that was being cited, largely due to the Terms and Conditions [35] giving a sense of professionalism. However, since those are only applicable to the site's message board, it was taken as conjecture that similarly high standards are applied to the site's articles. Something was also said about the website's editor being "listed in other media capacities when searched for (in google)", though I'm not really sure what was meant by that.
Not discussed was this page [36], which is arguably more relevant. Here, the The Digital Fix describes itself as a "hobbiest site that only just covers the bills" and cannot pay its writers. However, it also specifies that freelance work is, on rare occasions, financially compensated. The website appears to have editorial positions, and its film reviewers are granted access to press screenings.
I'd love to be able to use this review as a source, as it's one of the only ones online for By the Bluest of Seas and is actually quite a bit more in depth than those linked to by Rotten Tomatoes. But I'm on the fence as to whether it meets reliability criteria. If you reply here, please ping me by adding {{U|Jpcase}} to your message, and signing it . -- Jpcase ( talk) 19:32, 9 August 2015 (UTC)
This http://bonavox.nl/2015/08/heavy-metal-band-mad-max-from-germany-still-going-on-strong has been removed several times. This is the most recent. I'm trying to use it to support the band's date, nothing else. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:32, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
We have two articles based on claimed detection of an unexpected spatial clustering in gamma ray burst locations. The sourcing goes back entirely to claims by one research group. The article Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall is entirely based on a set of papers by Horvath et al., plus press release style coverage, and Giant GRB Ring is based on a single article in MNRAS by the same group. The papers have few or no citations, and it's not at all clear that the proposed structures are likely to exist in reality. In the absence of solid secondary sources to show that we should believe the papers, should these articles exist? -- Amble ( talk) 22:26, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Are these two sources meet the RS criteria to be used here? Thanks Mhhossein ( talk) 13:12, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The reliability of GRG tables for articles on supercentenarians in project World's Oldest People has been discussed here several times in the past but none of the discussions have been closed with a reliability determination. [37] [38] [39] [40] The articles are in need of work but before that can begin, we need to determine whether the GRG tables are reliable sources to support birth/death dates and age claims for articles on supercentenarians, particularly for the "List of" articles such as List of Belgian supercentenarians, List of oldest people by nation, List of supercentenarians from the United States, List of oldest living people, and List of supercentenarians who died in 2014.
There are several tables on the GRG site and the ones most commonly used as sources on Wikipedia are Table E (verified or validated supercentenarians), Table EE (supercentenarians pending validation), and Table I (verified supercentenarians organized by death date). There are also tables listing deaths in each year that are used as sources here. I can't find the validation process on the grg.org site but I think it involves the supercentenarian (or their next of kin) providing three pieces of documentation with the person's birth date which are then researched and validated by GRG researchers. My understanding is that claims may be pending validation because either they not have provided the three pieces of documentation or the documentation has been provided but has not yet been researched or validated. I don't know how much verification goes into verifying death dates.
GRG researchers consider all GRG tables to be reliable but I'm not sure whether they are. I think Table E is probably a reliable source for birth/death dates and age because entries have been fact-checked, whereas Table EE is probably not a reliable source for the same because the entries aren't fully fact-checked and there's no way to know how far along in the process they are. I'm also concerned that the tables are constantly updated and previous versions are not available so it isn't always possible to verify that a name appeared in a previous version of a table, but I don't know whether that affects reliability.
Apologies for the length of this post, and thank you for your help. Ca2james ( talk) 16:28, 14 July 2015 (UTC)
Hi folks. This is S. Jay Olshansky, Ph.D., professor of public health at the University of Illinois at Chicago -- my expertise is on aging and longevity, and my colleague Dr. Bruce Carnes and I are responsible for having contributed to the development of the modern field of biodemography. I have known the researchers at the Gerontology Research Group since their origins, and I knew Dr. Coles very well. His reputation was/is as a meticulous scientist who was a well established researcher in the field. He conducted more autopsies on centenarians than anyone else on the planet and is/was an internationally recognized expert on aging science -- his reputation is impeccable. It was a terrible loss when he passed away, but some of his work is ongoing by those involved with the GRG. The folks at the GRG involved with verifying the ages of centenarians and super-centenarians are extremely careful in their assessments, and they are recognized by scientists in the field as having provided the most reliable list of verified long-lived people in the world. There is a reason why the media turns their attention to them whenever the oldest person in the world dies -- they maintain the only international database on supercentenarians and near supers in the world that can be trusted to be accurate. I'm happy to provide more details, but for those of us who have been working in the field for more than a quarter of a century, and we've seen just about every ridiculous claim there is, there is something quite refreshing about the trust that can be placed in the people at the GRG to just get it right. I would encourage those at Wikipedia to trust the GRG, and I also encourage people making comments to sign their names. Sjayo ( talk) 18:32, 4 August 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjayo ( talk • contribs) 18:03, 4 August 2015(UTC)
I guess I'm not quite sure exactly how Wikipedia operates. You've asked for advice on whether the tables produced by the GRG are reliable. They are. The people most able to make this determination are not Wikipedia editors with no expertise in aging science; it would be scientists with a long history and track record of working in the very field for which you are seeking advice. If someone doesn't believe that I have expertise in this area, they need only go to my website: sjayolshansky.com and look at my vita. There's plenty of third party affirmation there as well. I've even published on the prospects of becoming a centenarian -- the very topic of this discussion (Olshansky, Carnes, Hayflick, 2012; Journal of Gerontology: Biological Sciences "Can human biology allow most of us to become centenarians?" doi:10.1093/gerona/gls142). If Wikipedia operates based on the opinions of people with no expertise in the very area for which they are seeking advice, over the very scientists working in the area of interest, then Wikipedia actually has far less value than I thought. Sjayo ( talk) 23:19, 4 August 2015 (UTC)
comment It appears that GRG is a very reliable source, and this argument is more about notability.
78.144.214.250 (
talk) 17:43, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
I had a question about how WP:Reliable sources applies to the map. Is a poll reliable enough to use on a map if it was taken one or two days before the most recent poll? Is the most recent poll the only poll that can be considered reliable and the only one that should be used when coloring a state? Is it WP:OR to conclude that the most recent poll taken in a state isn't the only reliable source and that polls taken a day or two before are also reliable? At what point does a poll become outdated and unreliable when compared to polls that are more recent? Btw, this issue is also being discussed at the dispute resolution noticeboard. Prcc27 ( talk) 03:56, 8 August 2015 (UTC)
The site steamlocomotive.com has now been added three times to the articles Puffing Billy (locomotive) and Stephenson's Rocket. "This site is run by a staff of one part-time person (me). I enjoy steam locomotives and collect information about them. This web site is how I choose to make this information available. " The site has no substantive content, merely a list of surviving examples. http://www.steamlocomotive.com/lists/searchdb.php?country=UK
Does this site meet RS? Do we need this site? Steam locomotives are hardly short on sources! We can very obviously do so much better than this, for detail and for robust authorship. The two additions are [42] merely duplicating an existing ref and adding nothing. Also for Rocket, [43] "It was also the first successful steam locomotive to run on 4 ft 8+1⁄2 in (1,435 mm) standard gauge track." which is a dubious statement on two (somewhat technical aspects). Although arguably correct on one, it's highly misleading to non-expert readers: it's just wrong, and a common misapprehension we have to guard against, to see Stephenson's Rocket as "the first" steam locomotive in almost any way. It was better in some ways (read the article), but it wasn't the first.
Neither of these additions represent an improvement, one is worse as it's now misleading and the source isn't RS for anything.
Raised at User_talk:Jackdude101#Steamlocomotive.com, but the only response was to add them again. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Beatport reliable for genre tag? In the Recess (song) article. 115.164.83.139 ( talk) 23:32, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
Chicago Monitor is "a website associated with the Chicago chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations" [47] and a front site for CAIR in Chicago, per FrontPage Magazine [48]. The assistant editor at Chicago Monitor is the Communications Coordinator at Cair-Chicago. Having the above in mind, does this source meet RS criteria for adding such a viewpoint in Quds Day aiming to approach NPOV? Mhhossein ( talk) 05:50, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
I hope a chose an appropriate noticeboard for this message. My concern is that source no. 12 from Greater Romania#Ideology is not correcly cited (the phrase is not about "The Romanian ideology"). The quote exists in the source text [49], but I think it is misued (it does not refer to the ideology of Greater Romania, as a general concept).
The article is not a frequently edited one, so I think that there are big chances to clarify this aspect here than on the article talk page. 79.117.135.199 ( talk) 06:10, 10 August 2015 (UTC)
It's being claimed at Gregorian calendar by a notorious troll (check Special:Contributions/JoeSperrazza for verification) that these journals are not reliable sources because they are "collections of self - published sources". I fail to see how content published by reputable universities all of which has been peer - reviewed by an editorial board can fall within this category. This is trolling as far as I can see, but I'd be glad for other editors' comments before I denounce it as such. 78.146.213.18 ( talk) 17:42, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Here's the apparent talk page conversation [52] and . While not a journal in technical terms, university vetted publications for basic information tend to be considered very reliable and useful. I'm not sure if that's the case or not here. Is there an online version so we can view the source? I really can't judge reliability at all just seeing a bare reference without information on how to track down the source. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 18:58, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Issue 196.5 - Three more friends
I have three friends, Alan, Bert and Curt. I write an integer greater than zero on the forehead of each of them and I tell them that one of the numbers is the sum of the other two. They take it in turns in alphabetical order to attempt to deduce their own number. The conversation goes as follows:
What are Bert and Curt's numbers?
If we can't cover such material then most problem - solving articles such as Birthday paradox will have to go. 78.146.213.18 ( talk) 12:44, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
The sole objection here is that the content is "self - published by students". However, with an editorial board consisting of three distinguished authors with a combined 96 years in post this clearly is not the case.
Unless anyone has further comments I think we can close this on the basis that the journal is a highly reliable source. 78.146.213.18 ( talk) 11:48, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
A student published journal is not an RS. Find another source for what you want to include in the article. Dbrodbeck ( talk) 12:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
User:Ibt2010 has cut a couple of Register references on the Faceparty article on the grounds that the Reg is a "tech tabloid" and WP:42 says "not tabloids". Archive threads on the Register as a source seems to come down to whether it's printing opinion or fact, and whether it's covering a subject within the tech industry. Since the sources here ( 1, 2) are both quoting what the Faceparty website said in public statements to its users, and the Wikipedia article isn't doing anything beyond quoting those quotes, this seems okay to me, but I'd appreciate an informed second opinion. -- McGeddon ( talk) 08:48, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
It's off-topic for RSN, but a quick look at the article made me curious about the obviously staged publicity image: File:Peterandreandjordanfplg.jpg. The file info says the shot is from July 2004 and is the "Own work" of User:Ibt2010. I don't see any official release, so is the claim that a general member of the public just happened to snap that at an optimum position and time? Johnuniq ( talk) 10:41, 12 August 2015 (UTC)
This issue arises out of this post at BLPN. Sorry for the long post, this is a complex issue involving multiple articles.
We have a list article here which lists individuals mentioned in the Venona Cables - basically people who are suspected or have been alleged (with some evidence) to have spied for the Soviets during and after WWII. The list article and many of the articles which are linked from it seem to have been based on the work of historian John Early Haynes: Specifically, this book (co-authored with Harvey Klehr) and this website.
For some of the people on the list, this is not that big a problem; many of them were Soviet spies and there is lots of additional documentation to back that up. For others, however, it is not so simple. See Margietta Voge and Rebecca Getzoff, for example. The problem here is that the person's presence on the list article is only referenced to Haynes' personal, unpublished website, and that in many of the articles linked (like Voge and Getzoff's), the only citation is to Haynes and Klehr's book - which I do not believe is a reliable source for the assertions being made in these articles. Take the article on Voge as an example:
The only source for the assertion that Margietta Voge "worked for the KGB San Francisco office" is Haynes and Klehr's book, which does suggest that she did. The relevant passage is: "Voge, Marietta: née Jirku (see Stidsberg, Augustina). An asset of the San Fancisco KGB. Cover name Daughter." Some might look at that, see that the book is published by Yale Uni Press, and say "case closed, she's a spy!" But we're in a pickle here, and it is nowhere near that simple. Here's why:
"Haynes and Klehr's abject partisanship, however, often leads them to make sweeping, uncorroborated assertions that are not confirmed by the Venona cables." [1]
"This penchant to indict also leads Haynes and Klehr to characterize any contact with Soviet agents and the information that Soviet agents reported to Moscow as 'espionage.' yet the majority of the reported information did not compromise US security interests, including 'analyses and commentary,' reports on the plans of foreign (non-US) officials, simple political intelligence and the monitoring of Trotskyites and Russian emigrées." [1]
"They might have taken into account the tendency of any intelligence officer to exaggerate, for political purposes, the number and importance of agents they are controlling. They might have considered the gray area between serving a foreign power as a 'spy' and informally discussing issues with an ally." [2]
"The book is perhaps most troubling when returning to old charges against bogeymen of the anticommunists. The evidence that Harry Dexter White was an agent for Soviet Intelligence is inconclusive, and the allegations against others such as the White House aide Laughlin Currie are on even shakier ground. (Factual errors in the case of the former Office of Strategic service aide Duncan Lee have been challenged by Lee's family...)" [2]
References
- ^ a b Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes; Harvey Klehr. Review by: Athan Theoharis.The American Historical Review. Vol. 106, No. 1 (Feb., 2001) , pp. 209-210.
- ^ a b Review Venona: Decoding Soviet Espionage in America by John Earl Haynes; Harvey Klehr. Review by: Scott Lucas. The Journal of American History. Vol. 87, No. 3 (Dec., 2000) , p. 1099.
Given that, is being listed in the appendix to Haynes and Klehr's book a good enough source to say that someone worked with the Soviets/was a Soviet spy? Is Haynes' site a good enough source to justify listing someone on the list article when no other source can corroborate it? Personally I would argue the answer is no in both cases; that we should nuke any reference to alleged espionage that is based only on Haynes and Klehr's appendix (if they are discussed in the body of the book, or in other sources it's a different story obviously), and AFD articles where that is the person's only potential claim to notability, like Rebecca Getzoff. But this is a complex issue so I am asking for consensus here before making any changes. Fyddlestix ( talk) 05:00, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The problem is that the NSA site contains the translated lists of agents, and are regarded as a reliable source in academic circles (cired many dozens of times, in fact). We could say "according to the Venona project" but the fact is that the NSA sources are reliable per WP:RS, and books published by the Yale University Press are generally accorded RS status as well. Saying "I don't like a source which is absolutely reliable" is a poor basis d=for removing it from any Wikipedia article. Further, that the current use of the Venona documents is now widely accepted - the use of "book reviews" from 2001 and earlier is not supportable here, a lot has been written since. [56], [57] and related documents meet WP:RS. [58], [59] as nauseam. [60] and so on. Note from the NSA site "The translations of messages of Soviet intelligence in Stockholm are particularly rich for their variety and volume: more than 450 messages of the three Soviet services, KGB, GRU, and Naval GRU. Sweden, neutral during World War II, gave the Soviets a valuable listening post concerning German military activities in Norway, Denmark, Finland, and the Baltic. Note the great attention to transborder operations: debriefing refugees from Norway and sending Norwegians back to Norway." " Discussion of important KGB agent and Swedish Communist, covername KLARA, who is completely devoted to us." Sorry - the evidence is clear and in reliable sources. Collect ( talk) 15:38, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
Reviews are slightly malused above: Theoharis is known primarily for doubting that Vassiliev even had notebooks or that he had access at all to any data from the KGB, and that the US code-breaking was due to use of repeated use of pads intended for single use, and not by any cryptologic efforts by the US.. Her also suggested Haynes avoided mentioning an exculpatory item about Alger Hiss, although Theoharis did not seem to find that item in any sources himself. [61]. Better to look at current works McCarthyism and the Second Red Scare Landon R. Y. Storrs; OUP, Jul 2015.
The tenor of debate shifted again when the end of the Cold War made available new evidence from Soviet archives and U.S. intelligence sources such as the VENONA decrypts. That evidence indicated that scholars had underestimated the success of Soviet espionage in the United States as well as the extent of Soviet control over the American Communist Party. Alger Hiss, contrary to what most liberals had believed, and contrary to what he maintained until his death in 1996, was almost certainly guilty of espionage. A few hundred other Americans were secret Communist Party members and shared information with Soviet agents, chiefly during World War II.34 Some historians interpreted the new evidence to put anticommunism in a more sympathetic light and to criticize scholarship on the positive achievements of American Communists.
Professor Scott Lucas states that Harry Dexter White and Lauchlin Currie were named on inconclusive evidence in the book. Cambridge University Press in 2004 saw no problem with the allegations about Currie and White. I find no basis for using him to assess facts brought out after he wrote in the first place (the Vassiliev corroborating material). Collect ( talk) 17:19, 13 August 2015 (UTC) .
Hi, I am new here and working on a draft in my Sandbox on an article about Panama Real Estate which will be the first one for Wikipedia. My question is about using Panama law firms websites where they explain Panama real estate laws to the public. I looked at the archives here and outside of a lawyer's blog where an unknown author posted a blog couldn't be used as a reliable source; I couldn't find past discussions on point.
Here are the text and citations I intend to use:
Many islands, beachfront properties, and special tourism zones real estate such as in Portobelo and Bocas del Toro are owned by the government, which grants rights to possess for specific years. [96] Pardini Law Firm, “Purchasing Property in Panama”, http://www.pardinilaw.com/news.php?newsid=49&p=1&catid=23
Panama’s Ministry of Economy & Finance accepts applications for concessions and will perform an Environmental impact assessment of the property if it is more than one hectare, and will do a Feasibility study for any commercial activities intended for the property. [98] Beth Anne Gray, Panama Attorney, “Application for Concession from the Government”, http://www.lawyers-abogados.net/en/Services/Panama-real-estate-transactions.htm
Real Estate Trusts In 2010, Panama created a new law allowing for Real Estate Trusts, which are based on the U.S. Real estate investment trust (REIT) and made changes to the tax laws in 2014 allowing investors to avoid paying a [[Capital Gains Tax] while the Trust avoids paying income taxes. Small investors can join other investors in forming a Real Estate Trust to purchase real estate to develop and lease. [99] Marielena García Maritano, Morgan & Morgan Panama Law Firm, “Real Estate Trusts in Panama: A New Frontier”, April 23, 2015 https://www.morimor.com/real-estate-trusts-in-panama-the-new-frontier/
Panama banks can issue a "Promise to Pay Letter" to sellers assuring that full payment will be made after the seller files the title deed with the Public Registry. [111] ^Rigoberto Coronado, Mossack Fonseca Panama Law Firm, “Guideline on Purchasing Property in Panama”, November 26, 2013 http://www.mossfon.com/news/mossack-fonseca-provides-guidelines-purchasing-property-panama/
There is a Panama law reducing mortgage interest rates for first time homebuyers by 2% off the market rate and in 2012, a new law increased the maximum value of a qualifying home to $120,000. This law applies to foreigners who are legal residents and first time homebuyers in Panama. [112] Panama Offshore Legal Services, “Panama Preferential Interest Rate for Foreigners”, 2012, http://www.panama-offshore-services.com/panama%e2%80%99s_preferential_interest_rate_law.htm
Lease/Purchase Option Panama laws recognize the right for renters to enter into a Lease with Option to Purchase Contract with their property owners. This is called a Lease With Purchase Option which has benefits including allowing the renter to know the property before purchasing, having partial rental payments used as purchase deposits, and the contract can be registered with the Public Registry which will prevent the owner from selling to other people. [119] Eduardo Achurra M., Pardini & Asociados, “Lease Purchase Contracts”, Pardini Law Firm, http://www.pardinilaw.com/news.php?newsid=202&p=1&catid=23
NOTE: As you can see I am using 6 different Panama law firms who are the leading real estate law firms in Panama. I was not able to find any other reliable sources for these topics.
Please let me know if these can be acceptable reliable sources.
Steven Rich in Panama ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
http://www.crimeflare.com/carders.html is or has been used on CloudFlare and Rescator used to cite "The site uses CloudFlare." and "The service protected various carding sites such ashas been used by Rescator." The source does not seem to be reliable for anything on Wikipedia. Jadeslair ( talk) 02:50, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is there any kind of definition of what constitutes "major media", and if that can be established that there is, then is lack of coverage of an event in "major media" sufficient to exclude mentioning it in Wikipedia under WP:UNDUE?
In other words, can some event be covered by a few smaller or alternative news outlets and still warrant a mention or inclusion in a Wikipedia article? Let's say an event is covered by Democracy Now, the daily news program.
Or, in other terms, is the fact that this is *not* covered in the New York Times or Washington Post or LA Times sufficient grounds, in itself, to say that this event is *not* of enough weight to include in a Wikipedia article?
Is there a list of news sources that *are* "major media"? Or does this distinction make sense but it's a "I know it when i see it" type of thing? Or does this distinction not make sense?
I understand there may be other concerns like WP:RECENTISM for recent events, as well as other considerations in terms of notability of an event, but is the news source not being seen as "major media" enough, in itself, to exclude a reported event from Wikipedia?
I am trying to understand precedent and weight as determined by news sources. If something is in the New York Times, i bet that few people would dispute that it's significant. However, if there a clear definition of what is "major media" and is that a useful yardstick by which to judge weight of an event that is reported?
Thanks for any advice. I would like to keep this abstract, and not point to any specific actual example. I am seeking to understand Wikipedia practice and policy further. SageRad ( talk) 17:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
The talk on the Monsanto Legal Issues page is what inspired me to ask the general question, but that is NOT the question and i actually resent you asserting that and bringing it into the discussion here. I would like to be able to talk about principles. So, please strike it and talk about principles if you want. This discussion has just become fairly worthless to me because of the redirection to that specific case. Can i even ask a generalized question and discuss it here, please? SageRad ( talk) 18:02, 14 August 2015 (UTC) The same crappy reasoning has just been used here, once again, and that's what i want to elucidate in general terms. There is this assertion that a sources are "blogs masquerading as online newspapers" and continuous reference to "MSM" -- again ,where is that list of what is MSM and what is not? Seriously, i am asking. SageRad ( talk) 18:05, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
In regards to an editing dispute on Fred A. Leuchter, is the website Spokeo considered to be a reliable source? See the discusstion at Talk:Fred A. Leuchter for details. BMK ( talk) 22:27, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
is anybody familiar with the Chinese-language website qq.com? The article " 蓝水海军的中坚:054A护卫舰" is being for the Type 054A frigate infobox. As far as I can tell, the author's name is not given and it gives no indications as to where it got its information. I am also not familiar with the editorial quality of the site (it's not like it's the People's Daily or something republished by the PRC MoD, both of which may put greater effort into verifying claims when it comes to military matters.)
If the source is acceptable, how much weight should be given to it? Should its information be used in the infobox, or should it be confined to the prose as another (unverified?) viewpoint? - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 02:02, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
(This discussion was started on 14 Aug 2015 at assistance/Requests Kids Company and moved here as the more appropriate noticeboard)
Hello. I hope I'm in the right place. On the
Talk page. A research
study by the the
London School of Economics into Kids Company is being decried by an editor
DeCausa as not from or not a RS. This is not about the figures referenced by the Talk link but about a particular
stating:
...that has now twice been reverted by the editor who has been a substantial editor of the article over the last 10 days. In a substantive exchange on the Talk page where indicated above, on 12&13th August, the Editor claims an article by The Telegraph and an article on the Times Higher Education website crticising the research study (because London School of Economics was paid to conduct the research) makes the report a unreliable/questionable source. My question is two or three-fold;
(1) When an organisation is considered a reliable source, say
Reuters, can articles published by them still be considered untrustworthy/questionable? Equally, if a RS like Reuters published a single unreliable article, would Reuters then automatically be deemd an unreliable source (I hope not) or would the balance of reliable articles they produce keep them in good stead as a RS?
(2) Do articles criticising research necessarily make that research automatically unreliable/questionable. In this case, LSE has robustly defended its own impartiality and that of the article - in the same Telegraph article source saying, "University departments are regularly commissioned by charities, businesses or the government to undertake pieces of research, "This is a standard practice. "With all funding arrangements, academic impartiality and integrity remain of paramount importance. "The findings and analysis of this report were based on the evidence and data collected by the researchers at the time".
Although the Times HE and the Telegraph suggest the LSE report is questionable they produce no evidence to back such claims whilst LSE is unequivocal in its own defence.
In the unlikely case that the LSE research is now considered questionable/unreliable, I would like, at least, to include the response from LSE included in the Telegraph. I hope this all makes sense and look forward to your response. The preceding entry was orginally posted by Selector99 01:21, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I enter this discussion from outside, and am not particularly conversant with the issues themselves, especially being American and rather far from awareness of the objects of discussion. In particular, I have visibility only to the printed material avail here on WP and in the references given therein, none to how the English media in general (or on video) are presenting the affair. It seems to me that some of the questions that have arisen about WP:RS may hinge on who is saying what and how, and how that is presented in the media, so I have chosen to remain distant from that kind of froth.
First, my impression is that the London School of Economics looks like a very solid RS from the outside. Barring some history of malfeasance I am not aware of, I see no reason that it should be challenged as unreliable in general. In this specific case, it also looks to me that its study, like most studies, did not have the scope "everything about Kids Company", but rather a more limited look at things. Naturally, the media story about the financial collapse has a wider scope, and with typical media imprecision, some commentators began to ask why LSE didn't scope everything out, glossing over the fact that it wasn't their job. (These are the ITV commentators referenced in the World Academic Summit article.) Notably, that WAS article and its companion here, the Telegraph article, do not themselves level accusations of unreliability against the LSE study. Only WAS mentions the ITV commentators, and those are the glossers. As subtext, I perceive some typical media frenzy, probably involving many unmentioned players, the net effect of which is to whip up emotional reactions to a sizable incident, the demise of Kids Co. Now, both WAS and the Telegraph feature prominently the fact that Kids Co funded the LSE study, but no more. LSE is not criticized for that, nor is the study itself. If someone in the media is trying to imply malfeasance by LSE or to undermine the study, they do not say so explicitly in the referenced articles given here. Therefore I cannot agree with user DeCausa that the study is questionable, and coming from an RS, it also should then be considered reliable here. I also disagree with DeCausa's analysis of the study itself, particularly in regard to the statement that Kids Company supported 36,000 children and adults. I wonder if the editors have considered that this is (according to the Telegraph), the number claimed by Kids Company at its closure, whereas the LSE report was done in 2013. But wasn't Kids Company supposed to have grown in the two intervening years? Something's fishy with those numbers, and I don't have the interest to sort it out, but I think we would almost surely have unreliable editing going on until the base facts are cleared up.
With regard to RS in general, I would hold up any media outlet and "news report", done for a continuous, hourly, or daily release, to intense scrutiny with regards to its reporting. Such reporting is by its nature designed to bring what facts can be obtained immediately to its audience, but it is not by its nature equipped to do more than a cursory job of vetting, and is never privy to the luxury of taking a longer or wider view of anything, nor of providing any kind of perspective to the events they describe. By their nature, they are highly questionable as to reliability. Only the highest standards of journalism are acceptable as reliable, and then only as to immediate details and perceptions of the moment. There is no question that there can be no scholarly rigor or balance in any of it; that's not its function. Nor can such sources be considered competent to make any judgements as to the reliability of a report such as the LSE's. For this, the ITV commentators are completely unsuitable. They may reliably report that some actual expert has judged the report to be reliable (or not), but they may not take that job unto themselves. So far, there has been no expert criticism of the LSE report presented here on WP (that I have noticed). The LSE report did list primary findings, and classified them as primary, and regardless how it arrived at the findings (a matter on which we and DeCausa have no business speculating), they stand as primary and as reliable so long as the report itself is not successfully challenged by experts (not media).
Please be aware that I'm not stating that the LSE report had its facts correct. I am saying that the report is reliable and should be used on WP as such. If the report is wrong, there needs to be expert conclusion of wrongness (for whatever reason, conflict of interest, or otherwise), not media innuendo. Then that expert conclusion can also be used as RS.
We are an encyclopedia. We take the long view. We do not report the news, even though we can stay up to date. Some things are given to immediate update (Voyager 1 is now x miles from Earth), and others are not. We can sift this, and wait for confirmation. A WP article should not attempt to keep pace with media's breaking stories. We need to provide perspective on what we talk about, and we therefore need to wait for reliable experts to provide us with the sources that enable us to provide perspective. I would suggest that the unfolding news story might be linked into the article in raw form by providing a kind of addendum section with minimal WP text and references to media reports, simply indicating that there is a story going on presently, and letting the media talk for themselves rather than for WP. (But dump the ITV commentators, who are guilty of overreach.) Evensteven ( talk) 01:02, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Evensteven, for your considered response. It's apparent that you have spent some time familiarising yourself with the Kids Company article and I am grateful for that. That said, the important issue is Wiki guidelines and I think you do well to make reference to these throughout. Also, I absolutely agree that the media are great at finger pointing whilst saying very little or even nothing at all. Selector99 ( talk) 08:26, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Even the most-cited academic assessments of the charity's workare not useful to this end." The highlighted text is a link to the LSE report. It isn't just that the report has been deprecated by The independent, The Times Higher and the BBC. The report, on its face, has made a number of statements which subsequent RS have contradicted. For example, it says that an increase in the level of management would be a risk to the charity - yet poor management governance (i.e. too light) has been covered by multiple RS as a major problem. I think the maximum we can do with this source is use it to say the LSE report said XYZ, but, so as not to be WP:UNDUE, include the criticism of it with that text. DeCausa ( talk) 12:12, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
i would also note... that at the present time, the article mentions the existence of the LSE report, but then provides NO information about what it contains.
which is bloody ridiculous; it's like reading a global-ban decision coming from the wmf:office :p
our job is to INFORM USERS about the subject (of an article); if our internal arguements & procedures prevent that, then we have FAILED.
Lx 121 ( talk) 14:08, 19 August 2015 (UTC)