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 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | → | Archive 200 |
Stumbled onto this 2013 article Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing today. I searched WP and found after 2 years that only 4 WP pages even mention Episciences [1] [2] [3] [4] and none specifically discuss this relatively new movement to eliminate commercial publishing of academic math articles. This does however correlate with what I know of the trends of commercially published sources for niche topics becoming less and less available as people publish many things on the web that previously were published as small books.
From WP:UGC (Reliable Sources - User Generated Content):
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
Peer-reviewed community-publications (like Wikipedia itself) are ultimately a form of vetted but still self-published material. If mathematicians are successful in this new way of publishing their work then eventually there will be few "reliable third-party publications" to use for determining reliability.
So, my questions are:
I do realize the latter question is a bit of crystal ball gazing but I think it bears a bit of discussion in the present because it is very likely that this is the future of some current types of sources. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers is a list of scientific publishers who will publish any paper, regardless of quality, for a processing fee. In some cases the predatory publishers uses a name that is similar to or identical to the name of a legitimate journal. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Are users allowed to cite their own thesis? Two people seem to be promoting their own research by opening accounts just for the purpose of performing drive-by edits in Myopia. Motion sickness is also affected. I'm questioning this matter because one of the users has a history of referencing some research presented on Blogger, possibly for the purpose of increasing search rankings. Latios ( talk) 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this primary source reliable for the following statement in the article Carnism?
An article in the beef industry publication Drovers Cattle Network criticized the use of the term, saying it implied that eating animal foods was a "psychological sickness".
See discussion at Talk:Carnism#Drovers Cattle Network. FourViolas ( talk) 03:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The items cited to housingwire.com at CoreLogic just seem to reprint whatever the corporation says. Is this a reliable publication in any sense? — Brianhe ( talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Are the pages on the Oldest people in Britain considered reliable sources for supercentenarian birth/death dates or age in WP:WOP's "List of" articles? One example is the page Recent deaths ages 107+ used in the article List of supercentenarians who died in 2015.
This question comes up because GRG's Table EE was recently found to be not a reliable source on this board and we are trying to determine whether or not the articles entries previously sourced to these tables are reliably-sourced. If this section should be merged into the section on news-written obituaries or the preceding section, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Ca2james ( talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to refer to this discussion above about whether the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables are reliable sources. The GRG is a scientific organisation that maintains a database of the oldest living people in the world and oldest people ever (aged 110 or over). As such, it is of course important that they "verify" all people included in these lists so that there is a high level of confidence that they are as old as they claim. The list would be pointless otherwise, as it would be full of people who claim to be over 110 years old who are actually younger. They have a "Table E" which is a list of oldest living people in the world, which has been determined reliable according to the discussion above. They also have a "Table EE" which is a list of "pending-validated" cases. These cases may have some documentation to support their claim, but not necessarily enough to be considered "verified" under the GRG's criteria. This was determined unreliable according to the discussion above because "fact-checking is not complete".
So what has since happened at List of oldest living people is that, whereas originally all entries were separated in to "verified, pending, and unverified" entries, pending cases were all removed and one list was created, which contained a mixture of people verified by the GRG (so their claimed age is very likely to be true) and people who have not been verified, and for whom the only source cited was a newspaper report (so we don't know for sure if their claimed age is true). There was no acknowledgement that some cases were verified and others weren't. NOTE: The page has now been protected due to edit warring.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a WP:Verifiability and also WP:BLP issue. If a person's age is verified by the GRG (or any other similar widely-recognised body) then we can be confident that their age is true. On the other hand, journalists reporting on a longevity claim do not necessarily attempt to verify the subject's age to the same rigorous standard. There seems to be an assumption by some that because newspapers are generally considered to be reliable sources, that if a newspaper says "Bob Smith turns 112 today!" then they must have checked the facts, but this simply isn't the case. Take the example of Carmelo Flores Laura. Here are just some newspapers who reported on him: [5] [6] [7] Let's look at some quotes here:
The media just state his claimed age as if it is a proven fact. But oh, wait a minute - it says he's got a baptism certificate! Maybe the newspapers do fact-check after all? Er, no. Let me now present these two articles, entitled 5 reasons this man probably isn't 123 years old and World's oldest man... isn't; Aging experts debunk Bolivian man's claim to be 123. Again, here are some important quotes:
So, I think this provides enough evidence that newspaper reports alone cannot be used to accurately state whether or not someone is age X, because there just isn't enough in the way of age validation. I would appreciate any other viewpoints here and I apologise for the long-winded post. Ollie231213 ( talk) 11:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to Kingdom of Sine and this edit. Dennis Galvan seems to be clearly a reliable source, see [8], as is the late Étienne Van de Walle [9]. There's old background to this tagging but I don't think we need to stray from the issue here. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, clearly inappropriate. I have vague memories of POV problems re. Serer with this editor several years ago, such as claiming Serer is an official language of the African Union, deleting the classification because he finds the relationship between Serer and Fula (Pulaar) to be offensive, claims that Serer is the "progenitor" of Fula and Wolof, etc. Edits at the time appeared to be based on own nationalistic beliefs rather than any reference to RS's, and any sources he disagreed with were by definition not reliable. — kwami ( talk) 21:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
inappropriate discussion anywhere in WP Jytdog ( talk) 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In 2012, the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put out a statement on the genetically modified food. We are working on developing a statement about the relative safety of currently marketed food from GMOs. This is a bit complicated, as the content and its full sourcing are each under development and this is one source among several being proposed for use
The currently proposed content and the source are as follows. Other sources are being brought as well - the question here is just whether this one source - the AAAS board statement - is reliable for this, or if we should not give a lot of authority to it. Not looking for definitive affirmation of the content at this point - just what weight we should give this source. I hope that makes sense. The statement of the scientific consensus appears in several articles; the current discussion is on the talk page of Genetically modified food.
References
Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (added relevant article, per request below Jytdog ( talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)) (note - added ref to actual board statement Jytdog ( talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC))
It is a statement from a few members of the Board in an anti-GMO labeling position paper. So if it is used, this should be made clear. Wording such as Tsavage suggested would be good: "in a statement opposing mandatory GMO labeling, the AAS concluded..." We just had an extensive RfC about this and other sources, please see Tsavage's breakdown of the AAAS source and why it cannot be considered independent (see third comment down - numbered points).
There are further problems with the paper, however. GRIST does a fabulous job so I won't attempt reproduce their work here, you can read it. Two points I will highlight: in their position paper, the AAAS misrepresents the WHO, which doesn't actually claim eating GM foods is safe, but rather, GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GRIST also notes that the AAAS misrepresents the EU study as well. Michael Hansen is quoted in GRIST as saying "If you actually look at the “study” it’s just a review of all the EU-funded biotech work for a ten year period. Most of the studies were about developing test methodologies to use in investigating genetic engineering (GE), not GE safety studies themselves. In fact, only three of the studies could be considered GE feeding trials and they all did find effects."
WP:MEDRS is required for statements concerning human health, and this source doesn't meet that standard. It is not a scientific paper, is not peer reviewed, is not neutral. As Groupuscule noted in the RfC, "A press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science—with exactly two footnotes!—does not begin to fulfill the requirements for a reliable source in this case." petrarchan47 คุ ก 17:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite the confusing framing of this RSN question, we cannot give blanket qualification of a source as "high quality" or "reliable" for any and everything it says, obviously, the specific content it is intended to verify must be considered. The primary objection to this source for the proposed statement of scientific consensus in Wikipedia's voice, is that the source content is not equivalent to the consensus statement. There are two parts.
First, the consensus:
Is this sufficient for restatement as "scientific consensus"? The AAAS release clearly wishes to convey that there is widespread, if not unanimous, agreement. Is their non-specific, all-inclusive list - "and every other respected organization" - sufficient? Or, is the WHO, AMA, NAS and BRS, specifically mentioned, sufficient when taken alone?
This is also where the nature of the document should be considered for independence. It is a one-page public position paper vigorously supporting no GMO labeling (to the point of stating that labeling supporters are motivated by "the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm"), which suggests that, at the very least, the wording be closely examined.
Second, and most important, the safety statement:
The AAAS release gives the impression of, but does not actually make, a broad claim of safety for all GM food. It has carefully reworded a finding that is widely supported, that genetic engineering is not inherently a riskier method of food modification than conventional breeding. In fact, it is the AAAS restatement of an EU report comment to that effect, which it has quoted in the sentence immediately prior: "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." full AAAS statement. In other words, if you create a food by GE, and the same food by conventional breeding methods, the GE method will not have introduced additional risk, the products would be same, as would the risk. This is all that is stated, not that "currently available GM food is no riskier."
WP:RS/AC is abundantly clear on the requirements for a statement of academic consensus in Wikipedia's voice. Regardless of how prestigious the AAAS may be, THIS document does not appear to support the desired consensus statement. -- Tsavage ( talk) 02:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
<od> Jytdog Then why not just cite the actual statement ????
References
Can someone clear this up for us - is a statement made in opposition to GMO labeling by the BoD synonymous with a MEDRS-compliant source, in this case, as a statement by the AAAS itself? (I am requesting that involved editors not repeat their arguments once again, I'm interested to hear from someone who hasn't weighed in on this particular source - perhaps Sarah SV?) petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Edwin Evans-Thirlwell is a UK based author of long-form gaming related articles that have appeared in The Guardian, Kotaku, Motherboard/VICE, The Mirror, PC Gamer, MacFormat (sorry, they have no online presence!) and many other venues both dead tree and online. Interestingly, he received his degree partially by writing on gaming history at the University of London, and is now in the process of starting a PhD in English. His works, both academic and trade, have appeared in citations in other works, both academic and trade.
This post comes up because I used one of his Kotaku postings as a citation to demonstrate GNG in a revived AfD. As I understand it, the basic concepts behind RS, and even SPS, is based on whether the author is writing about their topic of expertise, and that you can demonstrate that expertise by their other writings in materials that do meet RS. So, for instance, Sam Cohen's self-published book on his days in the nuclear industry can be considered an RS because he is a recognized expert on nuclear weapons and has hundreds of RS publications.
So, what say you all, is Mr. Evans-Thirlwell's Kotaku article a quotable RS or not?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Are family- or person-written obituaries, usually listed on Legacy.com, Tributes.com, on funeral home websites, and published in newspapers considered reliable sources for supercentenarian birth/death dates or age in WP:WOP's "List of" articles? Some examples of these obituaries include this, this, and this used in the article List of supercentenarians who died in 2015.
This question comes up because GRG's Table EE was recently found to be not a reliable source on this board and we are trying to determine whether or not the articles entries previously sourced to these tables are reliably-sourced. If this section should be merged into the section on news-written obituaries, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Ca2james ( talk) 20:04, 15 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.
In the article Murder of Anni Dewani, investigative journalism on the BBC series Panorama (TV series) is being listed as a source. There is a dispute over whether it is considered a reliable source. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion is underway at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and issues of the reliability of the source are being deferred to this noticeboard. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Robert, for opening this thread, as I wasn't sure how to. The Panorama episode entitled "Who Killed Anni" (broadcast Sept/2013) is an unreliable, biased, agenda-driven, and ultimately untrustworthy source. I could, ad naseum, dissect the program minute by minute to demonstrate this. But I shall not impose upon the reader more than necessary, and will take it one example at a time to make my point.
Exhibit A: the two very short clips linked below contrast each other to demonstrate an instance where Panorama tries to cover up very damning inculpatory evidence against Shrien Dewani. Namely, evidence that Shrien Dewani had secretly passed a large sum of cash to the men who murdered his wife, Anni. The implication made in Panorama's 2013 episode that there is no particular reason to suspect Dewani ever did so is entirely CYNICAL and DISINGENUOUS. We know this because in a previous episode of Panorama (one which is reasonably fair and balanced and which, as such, the producers would apparently now like to sweep under the carpet) they have a pretty good suspicion that he had done exactly that. See for yourself how Panorama, from the first Dewani episode to the next, suddenly developed a convenient case of amnesia: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yXmg92NvfgqhcVYMbb0oHfNhMFNkGEd Lane99 ( talk) 01:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Interjecting -- it appears the material is being used in a section about Panorama which is of no specific great utility to the main topic of the article at hand, but likely relevant to the article on that programme. As the programme uses different writers, investigators, etc. its use as a "reliable source for fact" may not be consistent, and I still want a spaghetti tree. Collect ( talk) 11:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The following text was remove from Susya under the claim "not RS".
Except for the leading statement which is a conclusion based on the documents it provides, every thing else is based on historical documents such as traveler journals, British census from 1945 and a book which is quoted also by the human rights organizations. In the discussion on the talk page editors argued against it that Regavim is "party to the conflict" and "copy-cat human rights". Rabbis for Human Rights, which represent the Palestinians is repeatedly used in the article, along with B'tselem and activist David Dean Shulman, both very active on this conflict. So, (1) Is it reliable to simply cite historical documents that can be verified or even appear already in the article? (2) Is it reliable to conclude Susya wasn't a permanent village but only seasonal one? (There is no evidence that contradict that. some historical maps show Susya, some don't and British censuses from 1922,1931,1945 [2] as well as a Jordanian from 61 (p.22) don't even mention it). Settleman ( talk) 08:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
References
There is no Wikipedia policy that enables us to evaluate the reliability of a source based on its political agenda. An NGO that supports policy (a) is not inherently more or less reliable than an NGO that supports policy (b), even if we really, really approve of policy (a) and really, really dislike policy (b). Both are NGOs, with a political agenda, neither can be used for unattributed factual claims, and either one can be used for attributed claims. Brad Dyer ( talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a whole article based on a report by Regavim. They take matter to court and won cases. Not liking their politics doesn't make them unreliable. And now I will shut up :) Settleman ( talk) 15:35, 18 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)
I'm not sure about the credibility of this site, but the about page reads, "There are two missions of this site. The first is to make available to the public the highest quality and most reliable historical data on important economic aggregates, with particular emphasis on "nominal (current-price) measures, as well as real (constant-price) measures ... The second is to provide carefully designed compartors (using these data) that explain the many issues involved in making value comparison over time." Kailash29792 ( talk) 04:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be an ethnic-related dispute here. Not too long ago it stated the Jollof rice was of West African origin [15] - the sources being a recipe website (not an RS) and "A West African CookbooK" by Ellen Gibson Wilson. At first glance that might not seem a reliable source, but the author, although not an academic, was specialist in the area [16] and her book has been mentioned in other reliable sources, eg [17]. But in the infobox it stated that Ghana was the source, and in May User:Yamaguchi先生 removed that as contentious and unsourced. Ah, looking at the next edit I realise that there was a lot of edit-warring over origin and that next edit was User:Smartse's semi-protection of the article. That didn't stop the argument and User:Jamie Tubers stepped in using a column in a Nigerian newspaper [18] as a source.
I got involved when an IP edited another article on my watchlist and changed the text sourced to Vanguard. I noticed that the text was (minor) copyvio and in any case seemed too specific. The IP and I worked it out on my talk page and looking at sources it was obvious that the origin is disputed (and IMHO impossible to determine as it was almost certainly made before written history of the area). Using an OUP book I changed the region to West Africa and added "According to the The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink "Jollof rice is a subject of great debate in West Africa. Every country has its own version, and abhors "inauthentic* variations."<ref name="Diner's Dictionary">{{cite book|last1=Ayto|first1=John|title=The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink|date=2nd edition 2012|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0199640249|page=188|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NoicAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA188&dq=Jollof+rice+west+africa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwA2oVChMI5s-b5tmoxwIVpbPbCh1odQAj#v=onepage&q=Jollof%20rice%20west%20africa&f=false|accessdate=14 August 2015}}</ref>"
Jamie Tubers then reverted me, removing the statement that the origin is a subject of debate and replacing the website and the newspaper as sources. This was after I tried to work this out at Talk:Jollof rice#Origin and sources where I had another editor supporting me and Jamie Tubers opposing me, in part because he thinks "West Africa" isn't specific enough and in part he says that the newspaper would have made sure that the column was accurate before editing. I'd pointed out that the columnist's qualifications are in management and administration [19] but that evidently didn't matter to him. Rather than revert again I've come here. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIR, West African "national boundaries" have no relationship to where any food is found. Ivory Coast, Gambia, Senegal, Ghana, Togo, Benin and Nigeria are not "natural nations" but were arbitrarily carved in the 19th century. "Jollof rice" is a one pot stew which is found across the "national boundaries" and arguing about specific nations is actually silly. It is likely common to every country which has members of the specific ethnic group or tribe named. Was this really a serious issue? Collect ( talk) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
A second dish that marks the connections in West Africa’s culinary geography is a ubiquitous dish called Jollof rice. ... Jollof rice appears prominently in most West African cuisines, such as Wolof (Senegal), Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Nigeria. Ironically, it is not called Jollof rice in Senegal (home of the historical Jollof empire), where that country’s elaborate version is called thiebou dienn(or phonetically cheeb u jen) and where it incorporates smoked or fresh fish. Cheeb u yapp is the same rice dish made with meat.
— James C. McCann (31 October 2009). "A west African culinary grammar". Stirring the Pot: A History of African Cuisine. Ohio University Press. pp. 133–. ISBN 978-0-89680-464-7.
Please see List of Dragon Ball Z chapters--where what could have been a reference list is basically a collection of spam links. I know we accept Amazon for release data and stuff like that (and I don't like that at all), but in this case Amazon is really all it is. (Of course, that it's all Amazon also means we're not dealing with a very encyclopedic topic, but hey--it's manga, and that's untouchable.) I know that Tintor2 has edited this extensively though I don't know if they're responsible for that. Anyway, I think that this is way over the top. Drmies ( talk) 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it is a reliable source for this edit. I was only able to find this review about the book. Some users are concerned about the publisher and/or the author's theological background. Here is the author's webpage on Princeton University's website. I appreciate your input on this matter.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There is an article called John Waters (1774–1842) at the moment the article is based on text copied from the copyright expired DNB (the ODNB (2004) confirms the DNB article is accurate).
A new editor, Águas added some additional information but did not cite a source, and because without an additional source the changes to the paragraph appeared to be supported by the inline DNB citation, I reverted the change and started a discussion on the talk page (see the exchange at Talk:John Waters (1774–1842)#Father). Águas has a source that supports the additions:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) — Length 38 pages.Is it a Wikipedia reliable source? -- PBS ( talk) 10:24, 22 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.
A thread above on the Daily Mail has led to discussions about RS much broader than that single newspaper. What criteria/rules of thumb should editors use to judge whether a newspaper is RS for the edit they wish to make?DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Could the draft table below be used to summarize consensus on the "general" suitability of newspapers as RS compliant?
Newspaper | Country | Age (years) | Does the source have a good or bad reputation for - | Do other sources | Another column | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Checking facts |
Accuracy |
Editorial oversight |
Reporting on this subject |
Correcting its mistakes |
Preferentially reporting scandal or rumours |
Preferentially reporting rare events |
Conflict of interest |
9 |
10 |
Report contradictory facts |
Report mistakes by the source |
Category 1 |
Category 2 | ||||||||||||||||
Daily Mail | UK | 65 |
bad |
bad |
gooda |
bad |
good |
bad |
good |
bad |
? |
? |
Yes |
Yes |
? |
? | |||||||||||||
Daily Express | UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
Daily Telegraph | UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
The Guardian | UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
Notes here aThere is editorial oversight, but the editor is clearly biased against feminist issues |
DrChrissy (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You ar forgetting the fact that a "source" has three components, each of which can be questioned independently: (publisher, author, text). If the reliability of a reference is questioned, this must be based on specific arguments. A policy cannot simply declare "LLanvabon Monday News" reliable to unconditionally trump any doubts. Yes, each WP:RS discussion is reinventing a wheel, because each time the wheel is different. Of course, we can reject triangular wheels right away, but even a quite round wheel may be wobbly. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
We really need a FAQ on this topic as it comes up again and again. The answer to "Is the Daily Mail as a reliable source?" is always "a reliable source for what"? I don't go out of my way to use it, and its hyperbole and ability to not worry about facts getting in the way of a good story is well known. [21] In that respect, it's actually worse than The Sun which at least is obviously a tabloid and makes no effort to pretend otherwise. However, it is the only British newspaper read more by women than men, and I am convinced it produces articles about fashion and shopping that are covered in more depth compared to other papers. In that respect, it is an important source when used with care to counteract our systemic bias. It is not surprising to me that a white, male 23-year old would find little of interest in the Mail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a sort of report card, while not definitive, could be a valuable resource for editors. Rhoark ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
'
Seems like the Daily Mail is getting very specific ire because of it's right-wing position, as there are similar left-wing tabloid-oriented sites used as sources like The Huffington Post and Salon (website) (the latter seems to be even more provocative than DM). If we need further guidelines on tabloid-like sources, I don't see any specific reason to single out this publication. -- Pudeo ' 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, do you have any specific examples of where the DM stated as a fact something that was not in the source where no retraction was issued? Article headlines, titles of books, etc., btw are never reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually did read user:Collect’s “wall of text” and I encourage all who have not to do so. The reason this question seems “vague” and the discussion “marvelously unfocussed” is that the question has no good answer, and yet it points directly at the heart of the hypocrisy about epistemological questions regarding news, that is Wikipedia. Which all gets stuck right here on discussions at this RS noticeboard.
Physicist Richard Feynman has a story about people arguing about the length of the Emperor of China’s nose. They make various guesses and then they do statistics. Finally they reach consensus, but none of it is any improvement, since none of them has actually seen the Emperor of China. All that is exactly the same thing you get when you reach a consensus about the reliability of some tabloid and a particular story in it, here on the notice-board. None of us really knows the truth about the report. We also really have no realistic way of judging the reliability of any given newspaper, nor does anybody do this for us. Reliability of various sources changes rapidly anyway, as they lose money and fire fact checkers (finding that they don’t really matter). So that leaves us up the creek without a paddle. Any consensus here on such matters, means nothing. It is worse than nothing, because it actually pretends to knowledge that simply isn’t available.
How did we get here? A lot of WP:IRS was written in 2005 by people who subscribed to the old journalism school that there existed reliable papers, and everybody knew which papers these were. “It’s a well-known fact that it’s a well-known fact” There was a day when the London Times was the paper of historical record (and all knew it), and the others were just tabloid crap, and so on. There was a day when the doctor actually euthanized the dying king of England so that his death could be reported in the Times, and not some afternoon tabloid. But we don’t live in that day. Or in the days when Woodward and Bernstein were setting the standard for the Washington Post.
But the stuff in WP:IRS got used to make the RS guidelines within WP:V. This, in turn, is a core content policy, a pillar of WP. So this newspaper thing was back-doored in. Because unfortunately, the “V” part of WP:V is trivial (all it means is: can you look it up and find it in the cite?). It’s entirely the unsung RS part of WP:V that is hard. And which is the part that now is shoveled like dust under the rug. And yet was written by the essayists at IRS in 2005-6 and now magically is “policy”. One that people on the noticeboard try hopelessly to follow, as though it was graven in stone on tablets from Moses. These old IRS essay people, however, were journalists with an odd point of view that was historical and not at all scientific. Does the newspaper have a “reputation” for reliability, they ask. This is risible. As for the fact-checking issue, that’s discussed up there in user:Collect’s “wall of text”. It’s kind of horrifying.
Meanwhile, the biomedical people took on the challenge and put in some useful guidelines in WP:MEDRS for WP biomedical content. Alas, most of these are unusable for yesterday’s news. Also, the information used on WP:MEDRS data is not available for historical events.
Wikipedia is a very strange place, not like any other, where the writer’s personal expertise on any given subject is not trusted. And yet, there comes a time in the epistemological chain when we reach the end, and somebody (everybody present) must take a flying guess, yea or nay. When it comes to pages like this one, the going opinion on which tabloids are reliable for which story, is put up exactly like the argument on the Emperor of China. The odd part is that if somebody actually did show up and claimed to be employed by a given newspaper and actually did know something about its reliability, we’d in theory give him no special notice, as his/her opinion on the matter would be worth no more than any odd person who turned up for the IRS debate on any given day, source, and topic, and gave an uninformed opinion on the matter. So here we are. It’s not very satisfying, is it? S B H arris 04:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog ( talk) 01:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the argument over SageRad’s position, I hope what I said above (which is different) has not been overlooked. To wit, if the NPOV expanded guideline
WP:WEIGHT is not to be overlooked we need “reliable sources” and cannot simply trust WP editors’ opinions on matters of “commonly accepted fact.” But that also includes commonly accepted facts about what are reliable sources. To quote directly from policy on
WP:NPOV: “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” Okay, fine, but finding the prevalence of belief among Wikipedia editors (or that subset who regularly turn up at the RS noticeboard) is very often exactly how we arrive at what we CONSIDER reliable sources, to begin with (!). In what world does that make sense?
There are places where this little conundrum has been noticed, and my favorite place where WP tries desperately to avoid the contradiction in epistemology, is at WP:FRINGE, a guideline referenced at WP:NPOV. There, the editors of that article take on the problem in a bold statement and footnote (8): “A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal. (footnote) A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal.” Aha! So in order to tell if a journal is reliable, one must find out if it is peer-reviewed, and treated as a reliable peer-reviewed journal in OTHER reliable peer-reviewed sources. Thus, (to compress this thought) we simply need reliable sources that tell us (directly or indirectly) what other reliable sources are. If we have a reliable source that treat another source as reliable, we’re home free. Or not. For then we’d need a reliable source for which sources are reliable in judging primary sources to be reliable. And then a reliable source for THAT judgment. You go down this rat hole infinitely (it’s turtles all the way down), until finally you give up and go here to the RS noticeboard and find out what the consensus is, of random guys who show up here. Hmmm. That’s what we do for “yesterday’s news from Gaza” or whatever. The only alternative is simply to weight things for NPOV based on mass circulation numbers of the news source (but what do we do for CNN?). If some example of tabloid journalism has large circulation numbers, we have to trust it (or give it NPOV “weight”) to that circulation extent. By the way, the tabloid journalism article I notice is lacking in citations about the reliability of tabloid journalism, which it claims is low. And is heavily tagged as lacking citations. So indeed, how do we know reliability of tabloids are low? What reliable sources say they are low, and (more importantly) HOW DO THEY KNOW? The lack of citations and presence of citation-needed tags in this article is telling. Or at least I think it is. Funny, too. ;’p The alternative for science matters is to look for “commonly accepted textbooks” (if only we had a method of telling what those are—sales? But undergrad physics texts do better than graduate student texts). In medicine, where we’d like to do things at a level a little sooner and finer than it takes to get into medical student textbooks, Doc James and his crowd over at WP:MEDRS are trying to get editors to recognize secondary reviews over tertiary ones, and says that “The best evidence comes primarily from meta analysis of randomized controlled [human] trials.” This is often true, but not always. Where is the citation for it? In a reliable source? Would it be a source that uses meta analysis of randomized controlled trials? No? Then just what is the Gold Standard of Medical Truth by which this statement stands? (My reservations about this are on the basis of an academic background which I cannot prove to you, and which officially doesn’t count here anyway). Why (in light of official policy) do we have nameless anonymous WP editors, whose medical knowledge we do not trust, poking about the journals for “meta analysis of randomized controlled trials”? Do we only trust Doc James to do this? Why? Is it the “Doc” in this username? Does that help? Here is some irony: one of the papers cited in this very policy which now gives primacy to meta analyses [35] also gives some weight to Eysenck’s criticism that meta analyses of trials in medicine can give an impression of weight which hides bias, and sometimes the (supposed) reliability of meta analyses is NOT borne out by single very large trials, which are taken by the medical community as better. (For example, the meta analysis on magnesium for heart attacks looked good, but the ISIS-4 trial showed it was no good, so now we don’t believe it.) At this point, you’re all saying: “But that’s a matter for the particular subject”. Wrong. It’s a matter for the whole WP:MEDRS policy, which shouldn’t be trying to do what it is trying to do, without admitting that WP’s RS policy is mocked thereby. The point here is that we’re not (or should not be) prepared to argue the fine details of evidence-based medicine, as policy for reporting medical "fact" on WP, when the very wonks who push for evidence based medicine in the real world, cannot agree among themselves. Are we? I’ll be glad to argue it, but do any of you know anything about it? WP can report on points of view about this, but ultimately to go beyond that, must trust in the expertise of its editors (Doc James, I see) to see that that some point of view about “truthiness” (which is proxied by “reliability”) is translated into WP:MEDRS policy. This goes double in other areas: WP obviously is relying on some kind of expertise or judgment of its editors about sources, to resolve WP:RS questions here, about yesterday’s news, on a case-by-case basis. So why not just admit this? An editor (or group of interested editors) that can be trusted to tell if a source is itself “reliable” can just as easily be trusted to tell if the source’s statements of fact are reliable. No? One question about "reliability" ("likely to be true" = probably Truth) is no different than the other. Can I hear from those who think they are different? S B H arris 01:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
There is a new RfC asking if the heavy metal music article should include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians. It is posted here on the RS/Noticeboard because Reliable Sources are one of the matters under discussion. To view and/or participate, follow the link here. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Cracked.com a reliable source for the article Seedfeeder, for which it is currently being used as a reference? Everymorning (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Cultural appropriation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ok, so we are having a discussion about the suitability of references for the article cultural appropriation.
first, i would like to request a review of the references currently in-use; both on their own merits, & as a comparison "baseline" for the proposed additions.
second, here is a list of references that are being considered. i do not suggest that ALL of them merit inclusion; my goal has been to compile a list of everything relevant, & then thin it out. the other 2 users who have been involved in the conversation have provided only limited consideration of the matter, resorting to mostly "blanket objections". after repeatedly pointing this out to them, one suggested that i should "take it here". so here i am, & here it is.
bear in mind that the article is about a concept in sociology, & that pretty much the whole concept of cultural appropriation is a matter of various opinions. most of my work has been in the "criticism of" section; with some additions to the lead section, the addition of henna skin markings to the list of disputed cultural elements, & only minor edits elsewhere.
the list:
'bearing in mind the nature of the article they are being used for, please indicate which references are & are not suitable, & explain the reasoning?
thank-you in advance, for your time & attention in this matter,
Lx 121 ( talk) 06:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of these are not RS. # 2 is an editorial in a campus newspaper, so is probably only a RS for the opinion of its author. Same issue with #3. #4 is, again, an editorial, so really only an RS as far as the author's personal opinion (which, as with the other editorials, I doubt is encyclopedia-worthy). #5 is (you guessed it!) another opinion piece. #6 is an RS, but it's a reference source - so should really only be cited for basic information about the article subject (definition, meaning of the concept, etc). #7 might be a RS - it depends what it's being cited for. #8 is obviously not a RS, it's another opinion piece, written by someone whose opinion is very unlikely to be notable or worthy of inclusion. I'd go on but I think the theme is clear here - for the most part, these are not RS and should not be used in the article. There is a crapton of well-written academic scholarship on this subject out there, that's what the article should be primarily based on and referenced too. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The scholarly term "bafflegab" is well-suited for the agglomeration and mélange found in this article. In some cases, people wear costumes because they find it is fun to dress up as someone else - just as sometimes a cigar is actually just a cigar. This article, unfortunately, seems to demur. There is a real topic - unfortunately this article does not address it in anything near a scholarly and neutral manner. Collect ( talk) 22:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
hello again; just to note, for the record, users: EvergreenFir, Doug Weller, Dyrnych, & myself of course are all involved in the editorial dispute, & have an edit-history on the article.
i was looking for uninvolved third party opinions. otherwise, we are merely recycling the same arguements from before, in a different location.
as regards the merits of the article as a whole, i agree it's got problems, that's why i started trying to present a slightly more balanced view.
as regards the matter of opinion vs fact, the entire concept is subjective; this is SOCIOLOGY, & if you can draw a hard line between opinion & fact, you should write a doctoral thesis about it. the entire topic of "cultural appropriation" is a DISCUSSON OF OPINION & INTERPRETATION. if we're going to eliminate that, the article will revert to a stub.
as regards the terms of my request, i am seeking some 3rd party consensus, on which of the "contested" sources CAN (& cannot) be considered "rs".
& while we're at it, let's have a look @ the existing "standards" of the sources used on the piece?
/info/en/?search=Cultural_appropriation#References
/info/en/?search=Cultural_appropriation#External_links
because, if NONE of the sources provided in the list above qualify as "reliable", then CLEARLY some of what's "in-use" now, has got to go...
Lx 121 ( talk) 13:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see background here. DrChrissy ( talk · contribs) is arguing for inclusion of this source to support this content about how honey bees are affected by geomagnetism. The journal is edited by Chandra Wickramasinghe who is well-known for his WP:FRINGE viewpoints and the paper hasn't been cited by anyone else. DrChrissy wants me to provide evidence that it isn't a reliable source for information about bees which is obviously not possible and I'm struggling to carry on explaining that politely, since it is so blindingly obvious to me. Your thoughts would be appreciated. SmartSE ( talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I contend that it is not.
Instead, it seems that Nasdaq.com provides more accurate data concerning shareholdings--and since most hi net worth individuals place most of their wealth into their own company shares, the Forbes data is in the realm of science fiction. If nothing else, it fails to update in an accurate and timely fashion.
For example, I attempted to edit the net worth figures for Steve Wynn and Elaine Wynn, predicated upon this year's sharp dive in their Wynn Resorts shares. According to the Nasdaq.com and its SEC Form 4 data, both Wynns have been reducing their shareholdings, along with an associated radical drop in share price. The Forbes data simply does not begin to reflect this massive drop in their respective equity participations.
A more detailed discussion of the matter can be found in the TALK sections of each listing
Revised Wiki Data2 ( talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Forbes a Reliable Source for Net Worth of Biographies?Yes, although its estimate, as any other, should be attributed. As for "hi net worth individuals place most of their wealth into their own company shares". citation needed And even if the generalized claim were true, it couldn't be applied to any particular individual without specific reliable, secondary source saying so because there are numerous exceptions. Abecedare ( talk) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We have a RfC here regarding the Josh Duggar scandal. Two editors with colorful block histories have joined others from Wikiproject Christianity to declare that public statements by Duggar's brother-in-law that give insight into Duggar's character and personality should be omitted because Slate, International Business Times, and WGN-TV are not reliable sources. This is such a new and novel argument to me that I feel the RS crowd would be able to offer expert input. BlueSalix ( talk) 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"Two editors with colorful block histories have joined others from Wikiproject Christianity to declare that..."is not only non- AGF, but block histories have absolutely nothing to do with editing the article. Bringing up such appears to be an attempt to poison the well with a borderline personal attack. As far as editors from editors from Wikiproject Christianity: also non-AGF. Further, considering the tone of the comments by the other editor above, the notification seems very much to be an attempt at canvassing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 26 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 193 | Archive 194 | Archive 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | → | Archive 200 |
Stumbled onto this 2013 article Mathematicians aim to take publishers out of publishing today. I searched WP and found after 2 years that only 4 WP pages even mention Episciences [1] [2] [3] [4] and none specifically discuss this relatively new movement to eliminate commercial publishing of academic math articles. This does however correlate with what I know of the trends of commercially published sources for niche topics becoming less and less available as people publish many things on the web that previously were published as small books.
From WP:UGC (Reliable Sources - User Generated Content):
"Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications."
Peer-reviewed community-publications (like Wikipedia itself) are ultimately a form of vetted but still self-published material. If mathematicians are successful in this new way of publishing their work then eventually there will be few "reliable third-party publications" to use for determining reliability.
So, my questions are:
I do realize the latter question is a bit of crystal ball gazing but I think it bears a bit of discussion in the present because it is very likely that this is the future of some current types of sources. Koala Tea Of Mercy (KTOM's Articulations & Invigilations) 16:44, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
FYI: Beall’s List of Predatory Publishers is a list of scientific publishers who will publish any paper, regardless of quality, for a processing fee. In some cases the predatory publishers uses a name that is similar to or identical to the name of a legitimate journal. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:51, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Are users allowed to cite their own thesis? Two people seem to be promoting their own research by opening accounts just for the purpose of performing drive-by edits in Myopia. Motion sickness is also affected. I'm questioning this matter because one of the users has a history of referencing some research presented on Blogger, possibly for the purpose of increasing search rankings. Latios ( talk) 17:17, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
Is this primary source reliable for the following statement in the article Carnism?
An article in the beef industry publication Drovers Cattle Network criticized the use of the term, saying it implied that eating animal foods was a "psychological sickness".
See discussion at Talk:Carnism#Drovers Cattle Network. FourViolas ( talk) 03:37, 13 August 2015 (UTC)
The items cited to housingwire.com at CoreLogic just seem to reprint whatever the corporation says. Is this a reliable publication in any sense? — Brianhe ( talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Are the pages on the Oldest people in Britain considered reliable sources for supercentenarian birth/death dates or age in WP:WOP's "List of" articles? One example is the page Recent deaths ages 107+ used in the article List of supercentenarians who died in 2015.
This question comes up because GRG's Table EE was recently found to be not a reliable source on this board and we are trying to determine whether or not the articles entries previously sourced to these tables are reliably-sourced. If this section should be merged into the section on news-written obituaries or the preceding section, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Ca2james ( talk) 20:04, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
Firstly, I would like to refer to this discussion above about whether the Gerontology Research Group (GRG) tables are reliable sources. The GRG is a scientific organisation that maintains a database of the oldest living people in the world and oldest people ever (aged 110 or over). As such, it is of course important that they "verify" all people included in these lists so that there is a high level of confidence that they are as old as they claim. The list would be pointless otherwise, as it would be full of people who claim to be over 110 years old who are actually younger. They have a "Table E" which is a list of oldest living people in the world, which has been determined reliable according to the discussion above. They also have a "Table EE" which is a list of "pending-validated" cases. These cases may have some documentation to support their claim, but not necessarily enough to be considered "verified" under the GRG's criteria. This was determined unreliable according to the discussion above because "fact-checking is not complete".
So what has since happened at List of oldest living people is that, whereas originally all entries were separated in to "verified, pending, and unverified" entries, pending cases were all removed and one list was created, which contained a mixture of people verified by the GRG (so their claimed age is very likely to be true) and people who have not been verified, and for whom the only source cited was a newspaper report (so we don't know for sure if their claimed age is true). There was no acknowledgement that some cases were verified and others weren't. NOTE: The page has now been protected due to edit warring.
As far as I'm concerned, this is a WP:Verifiability and also WP:BLP issue. If a person's age is verified by the GRG (or any other similar widely-recognised body) then we can be confident that their age is true. On the other hand, journalists reporting on a longevity claim do not necessarily attempt to verify the subject's age to the same rigorous standard. There seems to be an assumption by some that because newspapers are generally considered to be reliable sources, that if a newspaper says "Bob Smith turns 112 today!" then they must have checked the facts, but this simply isn't the case. Take the example of Carmelo Flores Laura. Here are just some newspapers who reported on him: [5] [6] [7] Let's look at some quotes here:
The media just state his claimed age as if it is a proven fact. But oh, wait a minute - it says he's got a baptism certificate! Maybe the newspapers do fact-check after all? Er, no. Let me now present these two articles, entitled 5 reasons this man probably isn't 123 years old and World's oldest man... isn't; Aging experts debunk Bolivian man's claim to be 123. Again, here are some important quotes:
So, I think this provides enough evidence that newspaper reports alone cannot be used to accurately state whether or not someone is age X, because there just isn't enough in the way of age validation. I would appreciate any other viewpoints here and I apologise for the long-winded post. Ollie231213 ( talk) 11:31, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
I'm referring to Kingdom of Sine and this edit. Dennis Galvan seems to be clearly a reliable source, see [8], as is the late Étienne Van de Walle [9]. There's old background to this tagging but I don't think we need to stray from the issue here. Doug Weller ( talk) 09:32, 11 August 2015 (UTC)
Yes, clearly inappropriate. I have vague memories of POV problems re. Serer with this editor several years ago, such as claiming Serer is an official language of the African Union, deleting the classification because he finds the relationship between Serer and Fula (Pulaar) to be offensive, claims that Serer is the "progenitor" of Fula and Wolof, etc. Edits at the time appeared to be based on own nationalistic beliefs rather than any reference to RS's, and any sources he disagreed with were by definition not reliable. — kwami ( talk) 21:11, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
inappropriate discussion anywhere in WP Jytdog ( talk) 13:03, 16 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
In 2012, the board of the American Association for the Advancement of Science put out a statement on the genetically modified food. We are working on developing a statement about the relative safety of currently marketed food from GMOs. This is a bit complicated, as the content and its full sourcing are each under development and this is one source among several being proposed for use
The currently proposed content and the source are as follows. Other sources are being brought as well - the question here is just whether this one source - the AAAS board statement - is reliable for this, or if we should not give a lot of authority to it. Not looking for definitive affirmation of the content at this point - just what weight we should give this source. I hope that makes sense. The statement of the scientific consensus appears in several articles; the current discussion is on the talk page of Genetically modified food.
References
Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 12:13, 31 July 2015 (UTC) (added relevant article, per request below Jytdog ( talk) 17:01, 31 July 2015 (UTC)) (note - added ref to actual board statement Jytdog ( talk) 23:48, 6 August 2015 (UTC))
It is a statement from a few members of the Board in an anti-GMO labeling position paper. So if it is used, this should be made clear. Wording such as Tsavage suggested would be good: "in a statement opposing mandatory GMO labeling, the AAS concluded..." We just had an extensive RfC about this and other sources, please see Tsavage's breakdown of the AAAS source and why it cannot be considered independent (see third comment down - numbered points).
There are further problems with the paper, however. GRIST does a fabulous job so I won't attempt reproduce their work here, you can read it. Two points I will highlight: in their position paper, the AAAS misrepresents the WHO, which doesn't actually claim eating GM foods is safe, but rather, GM foods and their safety should be assessed on a case-by-case basis and that it is not possible to make general statements on the safety of all GM foods. GRIST also notes that the AAAS misrepresents the EU study as well. Michael Hansen is quoted in GRIST as saying "If you actually look at the “study” it’s just a review of all the EU-funded biotech work for a ten year period. Most of the studies were about developing test methodologies to use in investigating genetic engineering (GE), not GE safety studies themselves. In fact, only three of the studies could be considered GE feeding trials and they all did find effects."
WP:MEDRS is required for statements concerning human health, and this source doesn't meet that standard. It is not a scientific paper, is not peer reviewed, is not neutral. As Groupuscule noted in the RfC, "A press release from the American Association for the Advancement of Science—with exactly two footnotes!—does not begin to fulfill the requirements for a reliable source in this case." petrarchan47 คุ ก 17:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)
Despite the confusing framing of this RSN question, we cannot give blanket qualification of a source as "high quality" or "reliable" for any and everything it says, obviously, the specific content it is intended to verify must be considered. The primary objection to this source for the proposed statement of scientific consensus in Wikipedia's voice, is that the source content is not equivalent to the consensus statement. There are two parts.
First, the consensus:
Is this sufficient for restatement as "scientific consensus"? The AAAS release clearly wishes to convey that there is widespread, if not unanimous, agreement. Is their non-specific, all-inclusive list - "and every other respected organization" - sufficient? Or, is the WHO, AMA, NAS and BRS, specifically mentioned, sufficient when taken alone?
This is also where the nature of the document should be considered for independence. It is a one-page public position paper vigorously supporting no GMO labeling (to the point of stating that labeling supporters are motivated by "the desire to gain competitive advantage by legislating attachment of a label meant to alarm"), which suggests that, at the very least, the wording be closely examined.
Second, and most important, the safety statement:
The AAAS release gives the impression of, but does not actually make, a broad claim of safety for all GM food. It has carefully reworded a finding that is widely supported, that genetic engineering is not inherently a riskier method of food modification than conventional breeding. In fact, it is the AAAS restatement of an EU report comment to that effect, which it has quoted in the sentence immediately prior: "biotechnology, and in particular GMOs, are not per se more risky than e.g. conventional plant breeding technologies." full AAAS statement. In other words, if you create a food by GE, and the same food by conventional breeding methods, the GE method will not have introduced additional risk, the products would be same, as would the risk. This is all that is stated, not that "currently available GM food is no riskier."
WP:RS/AC is abundantly clear on the requirements for a statement of academic consensus in Wikipedia's voice. Regardless of how prestigious the AAAS may be, THIS document does not appear to support the desired consensus statement. -- Tsavage ( talk) 02:22, 7 August 2015 (UTC)
<od> Jytdog Then why not just cite the actual statement ????
References
Can someone clear this up for us - is a statement made in opposition to GMO labeling by the BoD synonymous with a MEDRS-compliant source, in this case, as a statement by the AAAS itself? (I am requesting that involved editors not repeat their arguments once again, I'm interested to hear from someone who hasn't weighed in on this particular source - perhaps Sarah SV?) petrarchan47 คุ ก 00:00, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Edwin Evans-Thirlwell is a UK based author of long-form gaming related articles that have appeared in The Guardian, Kotaku, Motherboard/VICE, The Mirror, PC Gamer, MacFormat (sorry, they have no online presence!) and many other venues both dead tree and online. Interestingly, he received his degree partially by writing on gaming history at the University of London, and is now in the process of starting a PhD in English. His works, both academic and trade, have appeared in citations in other works, both academic and trade.
This post comes up because I used one of his Kotaku postings as a citation to demonstrate GNG in a revived AfD. As I understand it, the basic concepts behind RS, and even SPS, is based on whether the author is writing about their topic of expertise, and that you can demonstrate that expertise by their other writings in materials that do meet RS. So, for instance, Sam Cohen's self-published book on his days in the nuclear industry can be considered an RS because he is a recognized expert on nuclear weapons and has hundreds of RS publications.
So, what say you all, is Mr. Evans-Thirlwell's Kotaku article a quotable RS or not?
Maury Markowitz ( talk) 21:26, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
Are family- or person-written obituaries, usually listed on Legacy.com, Tributes.com, on funeral home websites, and published in newspapers considered reliable sources for supercentenarian birth/death dates or age in WP:WOP's "List of" articles? Some examples of these obituaries include this, this, and this used in the article List of supercentenarians who died in 2015.
This question comes up because GRG's Table EE was recently found to be not a reliable source on this board and we are trying to determine whether or not the articles entries previously sourced to these tables are reliably-sourced. If this section should be merged into the section on news-written obituaries, please feel free to do so. Thank you. Ca2james ( talk) 20:04, 15 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.
In the article Murder of Anni Dewani, investigative journalism on the BBC series Panorama (TV series) is being listed as a source. There is a dispute over whether it is considered a reliable source. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:30, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Discussion is underway at the dispute resolution noticeboard, and issues of the reliability of the source are being deferred to this noticeboard. Robert McClenon ( talk) 05:33, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
Thank you, Robert, for opening this thread, as I wasn't sure how to. The Panorama episode entitled "Who Killed Anni" (broadcast Sept/2013) is an unreliable, biased, agenda-driven, and ultimately untrustworthy source. I could, ad naseum, dissect the program minute by minute to demonstrate this. But I shall not impose upon the reader more than necessary, and will take it one example at a time to make my point.
Exhibit A: the two very short clips linked below contrast each other to demonstrate an instance where Panorama tries to cover up very damning inculpatory evidence against Shrien Dewani. Namely, evidence that Shrien Dewani had secretly passed a large sum of cash to the men who murdered his wife, Anni. The implication made in Panorama's 2013 episode that there is no particular reason to suspect Dewani ever did so is entirely CYNICAL and DISINGENUOUS. We know this because in a previous episode of Panorama (one which is reasonably fair and balanced and which, as such, the producers would apparently now like to sweep under the carpet) they have a pretty good suspicion that he had done exactly that. See for yourself how Panorama, from the first Dewani episode to the next, suddenly developed a convenient case of amnesia: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4yXmg92NvfgqhcVYMbb0oHfNhMFNkGEd Lane99 ( talk) 01:21, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Interjecting -- it appears the material is being used in a section about Panorama which is of no specific great utility to the main topic of the article at hand, but likely relevant to the article on that programme. As the programme uses different writers, investigators, etc. its use as a "reliable source for fact" may not be consistent, and I still want a spaghetti tree. Collect ( talk) 11:41, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The following text was remove from Susya under the claim "not RS".
Except for the leading statement which is a conclusion based on the documents it provides, every thing else is based on historical documents such as traveler journals, British census from 1945 and a book which is quoted also by the human rights organizations. In the discussion on the talk page editors argued against it that Regavim is "party to the conflict" and "copy-cat human rights". Rabbis for Human Rights, which represent the Palestinians is repeatedly used in the article, along with B'tselem and activist David Dean Shulman, both very active on this conflict. So, (1) Is it reliable to simply cite historical documents that can be verified or even appear already in the article? (2) Is it reliable to conclude Susya wasn't a permanent village but only seasonal one? (There is no evidence that contradict that. some historical maps show Susya, some don't and British censuses from 1922,1931,1945 [2] as well as a Jordanian from 61 (p.22) don't even mention it). Settleman ( talk) 08:08, 15 August 2015 (UTC)
References
There is no Wikipedia policy that enables us to evaluate the reliability of a source based on its political agenda. An NGO that supports policy (a) is not inherently more or less reliable than an NGO that supports policy (b), even if we really, really approve of policy (a) and really, really dislike policy (b). Both are NGOs, with a political agenda, neither can be used for unattributed factual claims, and either one can be used for attributed claims. Brad Dyer ( talk) 17:16, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Here is a whole article based on a report by Regavim. They take matter to court and won cases. Not liking their politics doesn't make them unreliable. And now I will shut up :) Settleman ( talk) 15:35, 18 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)
I'm not sure about the credibility of this site, but the about page reads, "There are two missions of this site. The first is to make available to the public the highest quality and most reliable historical data on important economic aggregates, with particular emphasis on "nominal (current-price) measures, as well as real (constant-price) measures ... The second is to provide carefully designed compartors (using these data) that explain the many issues involved in making value comparison over time." Kailash29792 ( talk) 04:14, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There seems to be an ethnic-related dispute here. Not too long ago it stated the Jollof rice was of West African origin [15] - the sources being a recipe website (not an RS) and "A West African CookbooK" by Ellen Gibson Wilson. At first glance that might not seem a reliable source, but the author, although not an academic, was specialist in the area [16] and her book has been mentioned in other reliable sources, eg [17]. But in the infobox it stated that Ghana was the source, and in May User:Yamaguchi先生 removed that as contentious and unsourced. Ah, looking at the next edit I realise that there was a lot of edit-warring over origin and that next edit was User:Smartse's semi-protection of the article. That didn't stop the argument and User:Jamie Tubers stepped in using a column in a Nigerian newspaper [18] as a source.
I got involved when an IP edited another article on my watchlist and changed the text sourced to Vanguard. I noticed that the text was (minor) copyvio and in any case seemed too specific. The IP and I worked it out on my talk page and looking at sources it was obvious that the origin is disputed (and IMHO impossible to determine as it was almost certainly made before written history of the area). Using an OUP book I changed the region to West Africa and added "According to the The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink "Jollof rice is a subject of great debate in West Africa. Every country has its own version, and abhors "inauthentic* variations."<ref name="Diner's Dictionary">{{cite book|last1=Ayto|first1=John|title=The Diner's Dictionary: Word Origins of Food and Drink|date=2nd edition 2012|publisher=Oxford University Press|isbn=978-0199640249|page=188|url=https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=NoicAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA188&dq=Jollof+rice+west+africa&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CDIQ6AEwA2oVChMI5s-b5tmoxwIVpbPbCh1odQAj#v=onepage&q=Jollof%20rice%20west%20africa&f=false|accessdate=14 August 2015}}</ref>"
Jamie Tubers then reverted me, removing the statement that the origin is a subject of debate and replacing the website and the newspaper as sources. This was after I tried to work this out at Talk:Jollof rice#Origin and sources where I had another editor supporting me and Jamie Tubers opposing me, in part because he thinks "West Africa" isn't specific enough and in part he says that the newspaper would have made sure that the column was accurate before editing. I'd pointed out that the columnist's qualifications are in management and administration [19] but that evidently didn't matter to him. Rather than revert again I've come here. Doug Weller ( talk) 13:52, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
FWIR, West African "national boundaries" have no relationship to where any food is found. Ivory Coast, Gambia, Senegal, Ghana, Togo, Benin and Nigeria are not "natural nations" but were arbitrarily carved in the 19th century. "Jollof rice" is a one pot stew which is found across the "national boundaries" and arguing about specific nations is actually silly. It is likely common to every country which has members of the specific ethnic group or tribe named. Was this really a serious issue? Collect ( talk) 22:38, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
A second dish that marks the connections in West Africa’s culinary geography is a ubiquitous dish called Jollof rice. ... Jollof rice appears prominently in most West African cuisines, such as Wolof (Senegal), Sierra Leone, Ghana, and Nigeria. Ironically, it is not called Jollof rice in Senegal (home of the historical Jollof empire), where that country’s elaborate version is called thiebou dienn(or phonetically cheeb u jen) and where it incorporates smoked or fresh fish. Cheeb u yapp is the same rice dish made with meat.
— James C. McCann (31 October 2009). "A west African culinary grammar". Stirring the Pot: A History of African Cuisine. Ohio University Press. pp. 133–. ISBN 978-0-89680-464-7.
Please see List of Dragon Ball Z chapters--where what could have been a reference list is basically a collection of spam links. I know we accept Amazon for release data and stuff like that (and I don't like that at all), but in this case Amazon is really all it is. (Of course, that it's all Amazon also means we're not dealing with a very encyclopedic topic, but hey--it's manga, and that's untouchable.) I know that Tintor2 has edited this extensively though I don't know if they're responsible for that. Anyway, I think that this is way over the top. Drmies ( talk) 00:24, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
I wonder if it is a reliable source for this edit. I was only able to find this review about the book. Some users are concerned about the publisher and/or the author's theological background. Here is the author's webpage on Princeton University's website. I appreciate your input on this matter.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 09:06, 21 August 2015 (UTC)
There is an article called John Waters (1774–1842) at the moment the article is based on text copied from the copyright expired DNB (the ODNB (2004) confirms the DNB article is accurate).
A new editor, Águas added some additional information but did not cite a source, and because without an additional source the changes to the paragraph appeared to be supported by the inline DNB citation, I reverted the change and started a discussion on the talk page (see the exchange at Talk:John Waters (1774–1842)#Father). Águas has a source that supports the additions:
{{
cite book}}
: External link in |publisher=
(
help) — Length 38 pages.Is it a Wikipedia reliable source? -- PBS ( talk) 10:24, 22 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.
A thread above on the Daily Mail has led to discussions about RS much broader than that single newspaper. What criteria/rules of thumb should editors use to judge whether a newspaper is RS for the edit they wish to make?DrChrissy (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2015 (UTC)
Could the draft table below be used to summarize consensus on the "general" suitability of newspapers as RS compliant?
Newspaper | Country | Age (years) | Does the source have a good or bad reputation for - | Do other sources | Another column | ||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Checking facts |
Accuracy |
Editorial oversight |
Reporting on this subject |
Correcting its mistakes |
Preferentially reporting scandal or rumours |
Preferentially reporting rare events |
Conflict of interest |
9 |
10 |
Report contradictory facts |
Report mistakes by the source |
Category 1 |
Category 2 | ||||||||||||||||
Daily Mail | UK | 65 |
bad |
bad |
gooda |
bad |
good |
bad |
good |
bad |
? |
? |
Yes |
Yes |
? |
? | |||||||||||||
Daily Express | UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
Daily Telegraph | UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
The Guardian | UK | . |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. |
. | |||||||||||||
Notes here aThere is editorial oversight, but the editor is clearly biased against feminist issues |
DrChrissy (talk) 22:46, 16 July 2015 (UTC)
You ar forgetting the fact that a "source" has three components, each of which can be questioned independently: (publisher, author, text). If the reliability of a reference is questioned, this must be based on specific arguments. A policy cannot simply declare "LLanvabon Monday News" reliable to unconditionally trump any doubts. Yes, each WP:RS discussion is reinventing a wheel, because each time the wheel is different. Of course, we can reject triangular wheels right away, but even a quite round wheel may be wobbly. Staszek Lem ( talk) 16:30, 17 July 2015 (UTC)
We really need a FAQ on this topic as it comes up again and again. The answer to "Is the Daily Mail as a reliable source?" is always "a reliable source for what"? I don't go out of my way to use it, and its hyperbole and ability to not worry about facts getting in the way of a good story is well known. [21] In that respect, it's actually worse than The Sun which at least is obviously a tabloid and makes no effort to pretend otherwise. However, it is the only British newspaper read more by women than men, and I am convinced it produces articles about fashion and shopping that are covered in more depth compared to other papers. In that respect, it is an important source when used with care to counteract our systemic bias. It is not surprising to me that a white, male 23-year old would find little of interest in the Mail. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:24, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
I think a sort of report card, while not definitive, could be a valuable resource for editors. Rhoark ( talk) 19:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
'
Seems like the Daily Mail is getting very specific ire because of it's right-wing position, as there are similar left-wing tabloid-oriented sites used as sources like The Huffington Post and Salon (website) (the latter seems to be even more provocative than DM). If we need further guidelines on tabloid-like sources, I don't see any specific reason to single out this publication. -- Pudeo ' 15:09, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
Kingsindian, do you have any specific examples of where the DM stated as a fact something that was not in the source where no retraction was issued? Article headlines, titles of books, etc., btw are never reliable sources. TFD ( talk) 18:36, 14 August 2015 (UTC)
I actually did read user:Collect’s “wall of text” and I encourage all who have not to do so. The reason this question seems “vague” and the discussion “marvelously unfocussed” is that the question has no good answer, and yet it points directly at the heart of the hypocrisy about epistemological questions regarding news, that is Wikipedia. Which all gets stuck right here on discussions at this RS noticeboard.
Physicist Richard Feynman has a story about people arguing about the length of the Emperor of China’s nose. They make various guesses and then they do statistics. Finally they reach consensus, but none of it is any improvement, since none of them has actually seen the Emperor of China. All that is exactly the same thing you get when you reach a consensus about the reliability of some tabloid and a particular story in it, here on the notice-board. None of us really knows the truth about the report. We also really have no realistic way of judging the reliability of any given newspaper, nor does anybody do this for us. Reliability of various sources changes rapidly anyway, as they lose money and fire fact checkers (finding that they don’t really matter). So that leaves us up the creek without a paddle. Any consensus here on such matters, means nothing. It is worse than nothing, because it actually pretends to knowledge that simply isn’t available.
How did we get here? A lot of WP:IRS was written in 2005 by people who subscribed to the old journalism school that there existed reliable papers, and everybody knew which papers these were. “It’s a well-known fact that it’s a well-known fact” There was a day when the London Times was the paper of historical record (and all knew it), and the others were just tabloid crap, and so on. There was a day when the doctor actually euthanized the dying king of England so that his death could be reported in the Times, and not some afternoon tabloid. But we don’t live in that day. Or in the days when Woodward and Bernstein were setting the standard for the Washington Post.
But the stuff in WP:IRS got used to make the RS guidelines within WP:V. This, in turn, is a core content policy, a pillar of WP. So this newspaper thing was back-doored in. Because unfortunately, the “V” part of WP:V is trivial (all it means is: can you look it up and find it in the cite?). It’s entirely the unsung RS part of WP:V that is hard. And which is the part that now is shoveled like dust under the rug. And yet was written by the essayists at IRS in 2005-6 and now magically is “policy”. One that people on the noticeboard try hopelessly to follow, as though it was graven in stone on tablets from Moses. These old IRS essay people, however, were journalists with an odd point of view that was historical and not at all scientific. Does the newspaper have a “reputation” for reliability, they ask. This is risible. As for the fact-checking issue, that’s discussed up there in user:Collect’s “wall of text”. It’s kind of horrifying.
Meanwhile, the biomedical people took on the challenge and put in some useful guidelines in WP:MEDRS for WP biomedical content. Alas, most of these are unusable for yesterday’s news. Also, the information used on WP:MEDRS data is not available for historical events.
Wikipedia is a very strange place, not like any other, where the writer’s personal expertise on any given subject is not trusted. And yet, there comes a time in the epistemological chain when we reach the end, and somebody (everybody present) must take a flying guess, yea or nay. When it comes to pages like this one, the going opinion on which tabloids are reliable for which story, is put up exactly like the argument on the Emperor of China. The odd part is that if somebody actually did show up and claimed to be employed by a given newspaper and actually did know something about its reliability, we’d in theory give him no special notice, as his/her opinion on the matter would be worth no more than any odd person who turned up for the IRS debate on any given day, source, and topic, and gave an uninformed opinion on the matter. So here we are. It’s not very satisfying, is it? S B H arris 04:48, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog ( talk) 01:39, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
In the argument over SageRad’s position, I hope what I said above (which is different) has not been overlooked. To wit, if the NPOV expanded guideline
WP:WEIGHT is not to be overlooked we need “reliable sources” and cannot simply trust WP editors’ opinions on matters of “commonly accepted fact.” But that also includes commonly accepted facts about what are reliable sources. To quote directly from policy on
WP:NPOV: “Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public.” Okay, fine, but finding the prevalence of belief among Wikipedia editors (or that subset who regularly turn up at the RS noticeboard) is very often exactly how we arrive at what we CONSIDER reliable sources, to begin with (!). In what world does that make sense?
There are places where this little conundrum has been noticed, and my favorite place where WP tries desperately to avoid the contradiction in epistemology, is at WP:FRINGE, a guideline referenced at WP:NPOV. There, the editors of that article take on the problem in a bold statement and footnote (8): “A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal. (footnote) A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. It must be shown that reliable sources treat the journal as a respected peer-reviewed journal.” Aha! So in order to tell if a journal is reliable, one must find out if it is peer-reviewed, and treated as a reliable peer-reviewed journal in OTHER reliable peer-reviewed sources. Thus, (to compress this thought) we simply need reliable sources that tell us (directly or indirectly) what other reliable sources are. If we have a reliable source that treat another source as reliable, we’re home free. Or not. For then we’d need a reliable source for which sources are reliable in judging primary sources to be reliable. And then a reliable source for THAT judgment. You go down this rat hole infinitely (it’s turtles all the way down), until finally you give up and go here to the RS noticeboard and find out what the consensus is, of random guys who show up here. Hmmm. That’s what we do for “yesterday’s news from Gaza” or whatever. The only alternative is simply to weight things for NPOV based on mass circulation numbers of the news source (but what do we do for CNN?). If some example of tabloid journalism has large circulation numbers, we have to trust it (or give it NPOV “weight”) to that circulation extent. By the way, the tabloid journalism article I notice is lacking in citations about the reliability of tabloid journalism, which it claims is low. And is heavily tagged as lacking citations. So indeed, how do we know reliability of tabloids are low? What reliable sources say they are low, and (more importantly) HOW DO THEY KNOW? The lack of citations and presence of citation-needed tags in this article is telling. Or at least I think it is. Funny, too. ;’p The alternative for science matters is to look for “commonly accepted textbooks” (if only we had a method of telling what those are—sales? But undergrad physics texts do better than graduate student texts). In medicine, where we’d like to do things at a level a little sooner and finer than it takes to get into medical student textbooks, Doc James and his crowd over at WP:MEDRS are trying to get editors to recognize secondary reviews over tertiary ones, and says that “The best evidence comes primarily from meta analysis of randomized controlled [human] trials.” This is often true, but not always. Where is the citation for it? In a reliable source? Would it be a source that uses meta analysis of randomized controlled trials? No? Then just what is the Gold Standard of Medical Truth by which this statement stands? (My reservations about this are on the basis of an academic background which I cannot prove to you, and which officially doesn’t count here anyway). Why (in light of official policy) do we have nameless anonymous WP editors, whose medical knowledge we do not trust, poking about the journals for “meta analysis of randomized controlled trials”? Do we only trust Doc James to do this? Why? Is it the “Doc” in this username? Does that help? Here is some irony: one of the papers cited in this very policy which now gives primacy to meta analyses [35] also gives some weight to Eysenck’s criticism that meta analyses of trials in medicine can give an impression of weight which hides bias, and sometimes the (supposed) reliability of meta analyses is NOT borne out by single very large trials, which are taken by the medical community as better. (For example, the meta analysis on magnesium for heart attacks looked good, but the ISIS-4 trial showed it was no good, so now we don’t believe it.) At this point, you’re all saying: “But that’s a matter for the particular subject”. Wrong. It’s a matter for the whole WP:MEDRS policy, which shouldn’t be trying to do what it is trying to do, without admitting that WP’s RS policy is mocked thereby. The point here is that we’re not (or should not be) prepared to argue the fine details of evidence-based medicine, as policy for reporting medical "fact" on WP, when the very wonks who push for evidence based medicine in the real world, cannot agree among themselves. Are we? I’ll be glad to argue it, but do any of you know anything about it? WP can report on points of view about this, but ultimately to go beyond that, must trust in the expertise of its editors (Doc James, I see) to see that that some point of view about “truthiness” (which is proxied by “reliability”) is translated into WP:MEDRS policy. This goes double in other areas: WP obviously is relying on some kind of expertise or judgment of its editors about sources, to resolve WP:RS questions here, about yesterday’s news, on a case-by-case basis. So why not just admit this? An editor (or group of interested editors) that can be trusted to tell if a source is itself “reliable” can just as easily be trusted to tell if the source’s statements of fact are reliable. No? One question about "reliability" ("likely to be true" = probably Truth) is no different than the other. Can I hear from those who think they are different? S B H arris 01:34, 22 August 2015 (UTC) |
There is a new RfC asking if the heavy metal music article should include a paragraph on the gender, race and sexual orientation of heavy metal musicians. It is posted here on the RS/Noticeboard because Reliable Sources are one of the matters under discussion. To view and/or participate, follow the link here. OnBeyondZebrax • TALK 17:12, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Cracked.com a reliable source for the article Seedfeeder, for which it is currently being used as a reference? Everymorning (talk) 12:45, 22 August 2015 (UTC)
Cultural appropriation ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
ok, so we are having a discussion about the suitability of references for the article cultural appropriation.
first, i would like to request a review of the references currently in-use; both on their own merits, & as a comparison "baseline" for the proposed additions.
second, here is a list of references that are being considered. i do not suggest that ALL of them merit inclusion; my goal has been to compile a list of everything relevant, & then thin it out. the other 2 users who have been involved in the conversation have provided only limited consideration of the matter, resorting to mostly "blanket objections". after repeatedly pointing this out to them, one suggested that i should "take it here". so here i am, & here it is.
bear in mind that the article is about a concept in sociology, & that pretty much the whole concept of cultural appropriation is a matter of various opinions. most of my work has been in the "criticism of" section; with some additions to the lead section, the addition of henna skin markings to the list of disputed cultural elements, & only minor edits elsewhere.
the list:
'bearing in mind the nature of the article they are being used for, please indicate which references are & are not suitable, & explain the reasoning?
thank-you in advance, for your time & attention in this matter,
Lx 121 ( talk) 06:39, 17 August 2015 (UTC)
Most of these are not RS. # 2 is an editorial in a campus newspaper, so is probably only a RS for the opinion of its author. Same issue with #3. #4 is, again, an editorial, so really only an RS as far as the author's personal opinion (which, as with the other editorials, I doubt is encyclopedia-worthy). #5 is (you guessed it!) another opinion piece. #6 is an RS, but it's a reference source - so should really only be cited for basic information about the article subject (definition, meaning of the concept, etc). #7 might be a RS - it depends what it's being cited for. #8 is obviously not a RS, it's another opinion piece, written by someone whose opinion is very unlikely to be notable or worthy of inclusion. I'd go on but I think the theme is clear here - for the most part, these are not RS and should not be used in the article. There is a crapton of well-written academic scholarship on this subject out there, that's what the article should be primarily based on and referenced too. Fyddlestix ( talk) 22:14, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
The scholarly term "bafflegab" is well-suited for the agglomeration and mélange found in this article. In some cases, people wear costumes because they find it is fun to dress up as someone else - just as sometimes a cigar is actually just a cigar. This article, unfortunately, seems to demur. There is a real topic - unfortunately this article does not address it in anything near a scholarly and neutral manner. Collect ( talk) 22:28, 18 August 2015 (UTC)
hello again; just to note, for the record, users: EvergreenFir, Doug Weller, Dyrnych, & myself of course are all involved in the editorial dispute, & have an edit-history on the article.
i was looking for uninvolved third party opinions. otherwise, we are merely recycling the same arguements from before, in a different location.
as regards the merits of the article as a whole, i agree it's got problems, that's why i started trying to present a slightly more balanced view.
as regards the matter of opinion vs fact, the entire concept is subjective; this is SOCIOLOGY, & if you can draw a hard line between opinion & fact, you should write a doctoral thesis about it. the entire topic of "cultural appropriation" is a DISCUSSON OF OPINION & INTERPRETATION. if we're going to eliminate that, the article will revert to a stub.
as regards the terms of my request, i am seeking some 3rd party consensus, on which of the "contested" sources CAN (& cannot) be considered "rs".
& while we're at it, let's have a look @ the existing "standards" of the sources used on the piece?
/info/en/?search=Cultural_appropriation#References
/info/en/?search=Cultural_appropriation#External_links
because, if NONE of the sources provided in the list above qualify as "reliable", then CLEARLY some of what's "in-use" now, has got to go...
Lx 121 ( talk) 13:45, 19 August 2015 (UTC)
Please see background here. DrChrissy ( talk · contribs) is arguing for inclusion of this source to support this content about how honey bees are affected by geomagnetism. The journal is edited by Chandra Wickramasinghe who is well-known for his WP:FRINGE viewpoints and the paper hasn't been cited by anyone else. DrChrissy wants me to provide evidence that it isn't a reliable source for information about bees which is obviously not possible and I'm struggling to carry on explaining that politely, since it is so blindingly obvious to me. Your thoughts would be appreciated. SmartSE ( talk) 16:01, 20 August 2015 (UTC)
I contend that it is not.
Instead, it seems that Nasdaq.com provides more accurate data concerning shareholdings--and since most hi net worth individuals place most of their wealth into their own company shares, the Forbes data is in the realm of science fiction. If nothing else, it fails to update in an accurate and timely fashion.
For example, I attempted to edit the net worth figures for Steve Wynn and Elaine Wynn, predicated upon this year's sharp dive in their Wynn Resorts shares. According to the Nasdaq.com and its SEC Form 4 data, both Wynns have been reducing their shareholdings, along with an associated radical drop in share price. The Forbes data simply does not begin to reflect this massive drop in their respective equity participations.
A more detailed discussion of the matter can be found in the TALK sections of each listing
Revised Wiki Data2 ( talk) 21:51, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Is Forbes a Reliable Source for Net Worth of Biographies?Yes, although its estimate, as any other, should be attributed. As for "hi net worth individuals place most of their wealth into their own company shares". citation needed And even if the generalized claim were true, it couldn't be applied to any particular individual without specific reliable, secondary source saying so because there are numerous exceptions. Abecedare ( talk) 22:09, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
We have a RfC here regarding the Josh Duggar scandal. Two editors with colorful block histories have joined others from Wikiproject Christianity to declare that public statements by Duggar's brother-in-law that give insight into Duggar's character and personality should be omitted because Slate, International Business Times, and WGN-TV are not reliable sources. This is such a new and novel argument to me that I feel the RS crowd would be able to offer expert input. BlueSalix ( talk) 00:03, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
"Two editors with colorful block histories have joined others from Wikiproject Christianity to declare that..."is not only non- AGF, but block histories have absolutely nothing to do with editing the article. Bringing up such appears to be an attempt to poison the well with a borderline personal attack. As far as editors from editors from Wikiproject Christianity: also non-AGF. Further, considering the tone of the comments by the other editor above, the notification seems very much to be an attempt at canvassing. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 00:17, 26 August 2015 (UTC)