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 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | Archive 198 | Archive 199 | Archive 200 |
Founder-slash-funding-source is redlinked Mati Kochavi; redlinked corporation Vocativ LLC is listed by Bloomberg, so they are a legit legal entity, albeit Bloomberg lists no details beyond corp-name and corp-website. [1] Publication itself *is* bluelinked, Vocativ. Being used in mainspace [2] for about two dozen nominally-WP:RS purposes, mostly "edgy" political-articles.
Also found in some BLP-articles, which are once again, mostly "edgy" politics-related BLP-articles.
Almost certainly qualifies prima facie as being WP:RS, to my wiki-eyes. They have professional editorial-oversight, and they use the real legal name of the founder. "Q: How big is your staff? A: Right now we’re over 50 people strong, and growing. We come from an array of pure-play digital and traditional media sources, both text and video. We’re learning a lot about creating a next-generation news operation. And we’re having fun. ...Q: So where’s the money coming from? A: We are privately funded, which gives us room to be ambitious and grow without having to compromise our quality. Our founder is Mati Kochavi, a global entrepreneur. Q: Does he call any shots when it comes to editorial content? A: No. We maintain a firewall between our founder and the daily editorial operation. ..." [6] Besides the founder, they have a corporation that can also be sued. [7] [8] They don't let anybody edit (reader contributions are marked with the edgy new lingo My POV rather than Letters to the Editor but the principle is the same -- non-journalistic contributions from the peanut gallery are marked as such right on the tin). They use real names for journalist-pieces, and at least some of the staff-writers say they used to work at PrintMagazinesIveActuallyHeardOf before joining vocativ.
But is it, you know, REALLY wiki-reliable? Not found in WP:RSN archives. [9] Honest question, never heard of these people before, not interested in removing the existing couple-dozen ref-cites that invoke Vocativ as a wiki-reliable publisher, not trying to get rid of the wiki-notability of the associated articles. (Methinks Vladimir Putin would probably not react well were his BLP-article to be sent to AfD... but since he has 442 cites besides vocativ prolly he's not too worried about the possibility either. Now, per WP:IAR, we actually *could* just delete his article... after all, Russia recently blocked wikipedia, so international geopolitical game theory says that tit for tat strategy applies, right? :-) Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Is Long War Journal a reliable source? http://www.longwarjournal.org/ Volunteer Marek is challenging this source and claiming it is unreliable.
I'm asking in general for all terrorist related articles. Because its not just me who is using it, type in longwarjournal into the search box and you will find many other wikipedia articles citing longwarjournal as a source.
Such as 2015 Park Palace guesthouse attack, Abdullah Said al Libi, Amirli, Yathrib, Iraq, 055 Brigade, First Battle of Tikrit, Raskamboni Movement, Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah, Afghan National Army, List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members, Ahmed Abdi Godane, Afghan National Civil Order Police, 201st Corps (Afghanistan), Nasir al-Wuhayshi, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Qari Hussain, 1st Division (Iraq), Operation Augurs of Prosperity, Sadr City, Iraqi Special Operations Forces, Mullah Mohammad Hasan , Iraqi Navy, Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Tehrik-e-Jafaria, Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle, Mukhtar Army, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Camp Speicher.
Long War Journal has also been cited by Academics in books published by Columbia University Press, Georgetown University Press, University of Pennsylvania Press, Naval Institute Press United States Naval Institute, in addition to New York Times (two of which were on the newspaper's front page), [1] [2] [3] Reuters, [4] Associated Press, [5] United Press International, [6] [7] [8] Sunday Times, [9] The Hindu, [10] Cable News Network, [11] the Times of India, [12] The Australian, [13] CTC Sentinel, [14] Time, [15] The Nation, [16] Washington Times, [17] and The Atlantic. [18] Marc Thiessen in the the Washington Post. [19] and by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Thomas E. Ricks in The Gamble. [20]
Some news organizations have an entire category devoted to articles where they cited Long War Journal on articles about terrorist groups such as Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Star
See the sources at Bill_Roggio#Long_War_Journal.
References
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help)
The 'Hero' of the War on Terror
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite magazine}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help)
Rajmaan ( talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Editor Jajhill has been adding analysis from the Koch-founded Cato Institute to several US presidential candidate articles, for example Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. I believe this is problematic inasmuch as the Cato Institute is not independent of the subjects. While the material is attributed, it is presented as authoritative and is probably WP:UNDUE. I would like to know what other editor's think about this. - Mr X 18:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
References
Maybe "describes" in place of "Identifies"? Writegeist ( talk) 04:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The Cato Institute identifies Clinton as a "interventionist" during her U.S. Senate tenure, indicating a protectionist, anti- market, and pro- subsidies voting record. [1]
References
I think Cato is reliable for a libertarian perspective on things, though we should be careful to include their criteria for ratings and not our interpretations of them. If "anti-market" is not directly stated it should be deleted. I am not sure why would we need a "counter-view", unless Cato is actually the only source quoted in a section. Dimadick ( talk) 11:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
.But his spokesman, McClellan, said Bush "has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years." As for why he did not back Danburg's bill--which would have angered the gun lobby here--McClellan said Bush thinks it is up to Congress to deal with the loophole. "Federal legislation created it," McClellan said. "Federal legislation should close it."
The original source and quote used by Rolling Stone... [13] (tenth paragraph from the bottom)
Bush justifies those positions as narrow disagreements over jurisdiction. Background checks are a good idea, he says, but because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it. That's why he didn't back Danburg's bill, says his spokesman Scott McClellan.
I presented the sources and quotes on the talk page but received the same answer here..."It's Dan Baum's characterization of what Scott McClellan said. To attribute it all to McClellan in the manner in question isn't necessarily his words, so it's erroneous. The next paragraph in the source shows a direct quote, which is preferable, though it deviates from the topic at hand in this article unfortunately. Same sort of issue with the second source." Darknipples ( talk) 19:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(Additional/more specific objection by said editor) "This diff is also relevant, as it is when the quotation marks were added. Adding them to my comment above as well, as they are a large part of the issue." Darknipples ( talk) 00:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify my position. What Godsy has done here [18], is to remove the more relative aspect of this reference (about GSL), and leave the text in regard to background checks. While background checks are relevant to GSL, they are not the same thing. The part about Bush's views on GSL are even more relevant. I'm fine with tweaking it so that all the necessary attributes are clear, and making sure no one perceives it as being stated in "Wikipedia's voice", but to exclude it seems to completely miss the point. Darknipples ( talk) 04:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
https://www.indiegogo.com, specifically
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-man-behind-the-suit#/story authored by Janett Salas
2. Article.
Robert DeProspero
3. Content. There is a feature-length documentary about Robert DeProspero in post-production called "The Man Behind the Suit: a documentary on Robert DeProspero".
Salas authored this article, which includes a brief fundraising interview with DeProspero;
User:Janettsalas also added the material and source to the article. While there may be a COI, I don't think that necessarily affects how we judge the reliability of the source. It is clear to me that the content is accurate and is backed-up by the source, however, the source is self-published. Looking for thoughts on this and other factors that may affect suitability for inclusion (e.g.
WP:WEIGHT). -
Location (
talk) 14:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
These articles are currently in use in this article. I have not included the content they are being used to cite because there are so many sources and they are being used to cite roughly the same things. Looking at many of these sources, some of them cite each other (e.g. Fox News cites AP), and many others them have nearly the same structure and content. Under WP:NEWSORG, it states that "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." Even if one source is selected among each group, roughly all of the same content in the article can still be properly sourced from my understanding of the sources. There is currently an ongoing discussion about this, but since this should be decided on a case-by-case and there are many articles, a few more seasoned opinions could help.
Articles about the initial arrest in China
Hwang Chul-kyu, who is in charge of international crime cases in Ministry of Justice, announced on May 16 that, "Chinese police informed us that a man caught in Beijing on May 1 turned out to be Jeong Myeong-seok after comparing fingerprints."
Jung has been wanted by Korean police, for fraud, rape and embezzlement, since he fled the country in June 1999. The pseudo-religious leader was placed on the Interpol wanted list in 2002.
Articles about the extradition from China
He'd been on Korean wanted lists since 1999 (and the Interpol Red Notice since 2004) after fleeing the country after charges of rape emerged. While overseas, he made constant headlines for allegedly raping female devotees in various countries.
Jung was taken directly to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutors' Office from the airport. Prosecutors began questioning Jung after his arrival regarding nine complaints filed against him on charges that include embezzlement and sexual assault.
Articles about the initial six-year sentence
A South Korean court on Tuesday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said. Jung, 63, the leader of the Jesus Morning Star sect (JMS), fled to China from South Korea in 2001 where he had been charged with selecting followers from photographs and then forcing them to have sex with him.
Notorious cult leader Jung Myung-seok received Tuesday a six-year prison sentence for raping and sexually abusing his female followers.
서울중앙지법 형사26부(재판장 배기열)는 12일 여자 신도들을 성폭행한 혐의로 구속기소된 JMS(기독교복음선교회) 총재 정명석(63)씨에게 징역 6년을 선고했다. (The Seoul Central District Court No. 26 Criminal Division (Justice Bae Ki-yeol) delivered a prison sentence of six years to JMS President Jung Myung-seok, 63, who had been arrested and charged with raping 12 female followers.)
A South Korean court yesterday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said.... Former members have told the Seoul court that young and attractive women were presented to Jung as 'gifts' and he forced them into sex as a part of a purification ritual.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)Thank you for your help. Phoenix0316 ( talk!) 06:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If I may add a comment here, my understanding of the NewsOrg policy under WP:Reliable Sources is that the stories have to be 'republished' or 'reprinted'. My understanding of those terms is that the news article has to be copied from one news organization (such as from the Associated Press) to another news organization, to be republished by the latter organization. With that understanding, I have looked at the sources [[User: Phoenix0316] listed above and it would appear that in relation to the first section on the subject of "Arrest in China", article 5 is a reprint of article 3, under the second section on the "extradition from China" article 4 appears to be a reprint of article 2, and under the third section on the "initial six year sentence", article 4 appears to be a reprint of article 1. As such should the reprinted articles be removed so that two citations of the same source can accurately be reflected to be one source, as per WP:Overcite? CollinsBK ( talk) 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sources:
Poughkeepsie Journal and
Hudson Valley Magazine
Article:
List of oldest living people
Content: The table entry on Vera Van Wagner seen in
this revision of the page, particularly for her date of birth.
Some editors object to use of these sources for two reasons: a) the Poughkeepsie Journal says that the person's age has not been validated by the GRG so the person's entry shouldn't be included, and b) age validation is a recognised field of study and so only sources that perform age validation can be used for birth dates; entries sourced to news articles should be identified as age claims, not verified ages. Other editors (including myself) think that these two news sources are reliable sources for this person's date of birth and her age.
This question involves the World's Oldest People wikiproject. There is a separate but related RfC going on asking whether table entries in these articles should indicate which entries have been validated by an age validation agency at WT:WOP.
Thank you for any help you can provide. Ca2james ( talk) 01:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Her claim is pending with the GrG right now, ie it has been rejected by them. The only tables should be the GrG tables.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
166.170.51.140 (
talk •
contribs) 23:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over Andy Whitfield's birth date and, consequently, his age at death. Pasting in the work already done by Niteshift36 ( talk · contribs) and others:
Writing "age 37" or "born in 1974" for Andy Whitfield, of Sydney:
Please help sort this out. It seems obvious to me which is correct, but there's so much noise on Talk:Andy Whitfield, it's impossible to get a consensus, and certain people are staunchly refusing to allow a birth date to be added to the article at all. Krychek ( talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Another editor is disputing inclusion of the Lumia 920T having an Adreno 320 GPU at Nokia Lumia 920. I contend it should be included, per the following sources:
Can those sources be considered reliable enough to support the inclusion of that information? Indrek ( talk) 12:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
[30] is being insisted upon as a source for a claim:
With a talk page comment:
This has been previously discussed and found not to be proper for the Cooper biography, and I fear the source may not meet WP:RS in the first place. I am absolutely barred by ArbCom from touching this again as it is now asserted (apparently) by its proponent to be a "political issue" and not a "biographical issue." Other opinions welcomed. Collect ( talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to post that there's unsurprisingly a new debate over TorrentFreak at Talk:The Pirate Bay#torrentfreak.com. I'm mostly saying this here to attract more people to the discussion and because it's growing heated very quickly. Previous RSN posts have included this and this, and they have been referenced in this new discussion with some concern over their outcomes. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 12:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not considered a blog. CFCF 💌 📧 14:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For the good of the net: The Pirate Bay as strategic sovereign; Andersson, Jonas; Culture Machine, 2009, Vol.10, pp.64-108 [Peer Reviewed Journal] shows how a TorrentFreak article is referenced in a scientific journal. -- Ondertitel ( talk) 00:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a non-neutral source, and as I mentioned on the talk page, there are very few sources in any subject area that could possibly be described as neutral. The fact that torrentfreak uses a non-neutral headline does not at all invalidate them as a source. Opinions in torrentfreak articles should only be included on Wikipedia with the regular opinion disclaimers, but the fact that their articles are frequently opinionated do not make them an invalid source for matters of simple fact. I have no idea why you think the fact that they have run editorials by Peter Sunde speaks against their reliability - many news sources run editorials by people who have opinions and/or people who are involved in controversial stuff.
— Kevin (kgorman-ucb) [34]
A source does not become unreliable just by publishing opinions favorable to a political party which one Wikipedian does not like. Squidfryerchef has said it well: The numerous citations of Torrentfreak in publications which are uncontroversially regarded as reliable sources (see also Google Scholar) show that the site has a reputation of being citeable with regard to its (limited) area of expertise. Given this reputation outside Wikipedia, it is irrelevant whether a Wikipedian is "struggling" to understand why all these scholarly articles, reputable newspapers etc. chose to cite TorrentFreak. Speculating about their editorial process also doesn't override this evidence.
— HaeB [35]
Given the examples so far, we may have to rethink prior consensus, and limit it to claims about themselves and the like. A TorrentFreak doesn't appear to lend much, if any, weight beyond. --
Ronz (
talk) 17:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Diff [39]
References (text) already used & already cited...
Sources (citations) added (in addition to original cites in article body)...
Relevant article talk page section [42]. Darknipples ( talk) 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The page List of vaping bans in the United States. Currently no discussion on this source is on the talk page. The source "States and Municipalities with Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes"
This source is produced by the "Americans for nonsmokers rights foundation" [43] an advocacy group. I see nor can find any indication that they are known for fact checking or that they have any editorial control. I am sure the information can and should be cited to reliable sources like news sites. AlbinoFerret 15:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to list my band "The Rhythm and Blues Brothers" http://www.therhythmandbluesbrothers.co.uk/ on wikipedia, however I understand that you have a Notability policy in place for such topics.
I just wanted to know, whether we qualify as we have been featured on the James Whale Radio show - for BBC Essex in the UK recently, please let me know if this can be accommodated for.
Regards.
Taylan Oliver. (Band Manager) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylanoliver24 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC+9)
Hey all, I've noticed a flare-up of activity with users (for instance this one and this one) submitting WomansEra.com as a reference. I know that Arjayay has been encountering this a ton and reverting. Is anyone aware of this publication? Based on this poorly sourced draft article it's claimed that the mag has been around since 1973. A quick Google image search seems to support that they've produced a number of printed covers. The website doesn't strike me as very professional-looking, and this review is poorly written with consistently incorrect capitalization, misspelling of "title", etc. This seems like it would run afoul of the WP:RS requirement that our sources should have a clear editorial policy, but maybe it's just a crappy translation? I want to be sure we're being fair and not just automatically dismissive. Your thoughts are solicited. If this magazine isn't considered reliable and if the content keeps getting submitted, we might consider requesting that it be added to the spam blacklist to prevent future disruption. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
From my talk page:
I look at vault.com once again, to figure out whether it is a reliable source for their ranking, and the following their statement raises a red flag for me: "Vault’s influential company rankings, ratings and reviews are sourced and verified through ongoing directed surveys of active employees and enrolled students. Vault also welcomes current and previous employees and students who were unable to participate in the surveys, to submit reviews on their experiences, salaries, interviews and more." There is no transparency it their rankings, just one more "gradeMyTeacher" or "yelp" crowdsourced opinion collection, and I would suggest to remove its rankings from wikipedia as vanity puffery (by a number of anons, such as recent
Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. GermanJoe wrote there were 200 hits, but today I see already 325.
So I would guess that vault.com is being spammed into wikipedia. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
In order to properly reflect a company's status as an employer within the consulting industry, the Vault Consulting 50 for 2016 is based on the following weighted formula:
30 percent prestige 15 percent satisfaction 15 percent compensation 10 percent firm culture 10 percent work-life balance 10 percent overall business outlook 5 percent promotion policies 5 percent ability to challenge
As ever, our survey is only open to consultants who are currently employed at reputable firms in the industry. When rating quality of life issues, consultants are only permitted to rate their own firm. For prestige and practice area rankings, however, consultants are only allowed to rate competitors, and NOT their own firms. Alaynestone ( talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: When I wrote " nothing is known about their ranking: the expertise of rankers, the criteria, the coverage, etc. " I meant nothing is is known about vault.com from independent sources. They can write whatever they want about themselves. They can claim 17,000 experts busily reviewing companies when for all we know they are hiring an Indian sweatshop to browse the web. You have to present a solid proof that the company is reputable. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary Let me see if I can take the concerns and rebuttals specific to Vault (not the side tangent about the law firm) and summarize. Did I miss anything?
On the Dash_(cryptocurrency) page, anonymous users from forums and blogs like bitcointalk.org, devtome.com, and dashdot.io are used as sources for information in the last part of the History section. This appears to violate the rules against using self-published sources ( WP:RS). The language of the edits also use poor grammar, spelling, and weasel words. I've tried adding templates indicating such and attempted to direct the discussion to the Talk page but the editor (IP address 75.93.11.94) removes my edits and/or replaces them with another questionable source.
Any advice on how to move forward from here without edit warring? Thanks. Raze182 ( talk) 05:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The article that the source is supporting is all bands, genre. A combination of Hardcore Punk and Thrash Metal, Metalcore is among the most popular of the subgenres. Double-bass driven, tuned-down riffs punctuated by half-time breakdowns provide the foundation for the shouted vocals. Century Media and Medal Blade records saw huge success for the genre with several albums cracking the top ten of the Billboard Top 200. Quite an accomplishment. Examples: Hatebreed, Bury Your Dead, Killswitch Engage, While She Sleeps, Asking Alexandria, Bleeding Through, Integrity, Unearth, Hogan's Heroes, As I Lay Dying, God Forbid, Shadows Fall.
Metalcore. Examples: Hatebreed, Bury Your Dead, Killswitch Engage, While She Sleeps, Asking Alexandria, Bleeding Through, Integrity, Unearth, Hogan's Heroes, As I Lay Dying, God Forbid, Shadows Fall.
[51] Metalcore— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 September 2015(UTC+9)
The article the source is supporting that Hogan's Heroes just like most bands who have Hardcore punk mixed with Heavy Metal, have been labeled these genres Metallic Hardcore, Hardcore Punk, Metalcore, Crossover Thrash and Skate Punk. That the band is seminal in the development of Metallic Hardcore, Metalcore, Skate punk, and Crossover thrash.
Hogan's Heroes formed in 1984. The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash
http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/artist/hogans-heroes — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
Who is he? Where else has he written? This is the type of information you need to bring here to demonstrate that the source is reliable. Woodroar ( talk) 04:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Is retractionwatch.com a "reliable source" for claims about living persons? Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ariel_Fernandez has editors discussing the issues raised about that blog, and clearly the issue is implicit as to whether it is a reliable source for the purposes to which it is proposed being used or accepted. Collect ( talk) 12:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The site http://answering-islam.org/ is used on 226 Wikipedia pages, 35 of them articles. [53]
It appears to be a Christian site that gives a "answer" to Islam, with anonymous authors. I don't see any way it could be considered a reliable source.
Given how many christian apologists use this site as an authority, I predict a storm of criticism, edit warring, etc. if I make any attempt to remove those citations. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The article the source is supporting that Earth Crisis, Integrity, Hogan's Heroes are the first three Metalcore bands. [54] bottom of page, below reviews is original article about Metalcore.
Первые металкор группы, такие как Earth Crisis, Integrity, Hogan's Heroes, музыкально ближе к хардкор-панку, а более поздние, например Trivium, Atreyu, Bleeding Through и Unearth, больше склоняются в сторону метала.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
Hello, The article that the source is supporting is the band genre Hogan's Heroes at Metalcore. Thank You for your time. [55] CombatMarshmallow ( talk) 00:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hogan's Heroes - Metalcore
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
inweekly
I would really appreciate help to see if I am right at the discussion Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constitutive.22_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia. The issue is about a constitutional change that happened in 1990 in Croatia which is controversial and uncomfortable for Croatians nowadays. The situation at the discussion is the following: me alone having provided 15 sources to back up a statement versus a group of Croatian editors challenging it however lacking sources (well, one editor claims there is one, in Croatian, but we cannot verify it). A RfC was made but no neutral participants jumped in. After about 3 weeks of discussion with some editors who challenged the statement admitted they could do nothing, I was bold and I added the 15-sources backed statement, with no sources contradicting it, to the article ( my edit). In the edit I choosed some among the 15 sources I presented at the talk-page. Neverless, I was reverted ( diff). At that point the main objection at the discussion was that I failed to provide sources that would explain what the "constituent nation" exactly means, and without the exact explanation, the 15-sources backed statement couldn't go to the article... OK, I said, some of my 15 sources deal with the issue more in detail, it is not a problem for me to add it, and I did it ( [57]). For time being I was not reverted yet, however, as it can be seen at the discussion (at recent comments by Direktor), one editor is challenging an author of one of my sources, Snežana Trifunovska. Her book I am using is: Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution. Is the challenging of her book as source correct? FkpCascais ( talk) 21:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if theScoreesports.com is a reliable source to be used on League of Legends Pro League.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 04:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a long paragraph, please forgive me.
Hello, I was trying to edit the starchild skull article, and am wondering if these sources are acceptable:
Cradleboarding: http://www.starchildproject.com/cradleboarding.htm#
Hydrocephalus: http://www.starchildproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=294&catid=13
The reasoning behind this is that the current version of the aforementioned article is very one-sided (the NPOV is rather absent). I did write what I thought was a neutral article, listing both sides and their sources, but I was accused of using an "unreliable" source. Both of the sources above were based on a report written by Dr. Ted Robinson. If these sources were written by a medical expert, I can see no reason as to why they are invalid. The current source being used was written by Dr. Novella, so why can't a source based on Dr. Robinson's report be used? I feel that the Starchild project IS reliable, and can still be cited without breaking WP:NPOV.
The only reason I don't see Dr Robinson's report cited is because it was published on what some of the editors of the starchild skull article were labeling a "fringe" source. The starchild project has a list of credible sources and medical experts who examined the skull. The Novella source is purely conjecture, as he never examined the skull in detail, and already had a bias against the starchild skull. The starchild project can be any bit as reliable as Steven novella, even more-so, as they, unlike novella, are the foremost experts on the starchild skull, that can be found, because they have a list of medical experts, and doctors, who can back up their statements and information. This is a case of one, biased medical expert, whose writing is nothing but opinion and conjecture, versus 11 experts who took time to examine the skull, without a prior bias toward, or against, the starchild skull. This, and also, the ambiguity of the article, not only suggest bias, but maybe even a sort of "censorship". I appreciate any input from you. EBenderednebE ( talk) 20:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if this kind of biographical memoir is considered to be a primary source for Jordi Folch Pi. It was apparently written by two of Folch's students who are now well-established scientists themselves, but the disclaimer on the first page of the source states "Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences." I tagged it as a primary source, but will gladly correct that if it's not since it's being extensively cited throughout the article. FWIW, the authors do cite quite a few sources themselves which may be considered independent enough to support what written in the memoir. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Can the following source be used in United States to say that taxes in the U.S. are more progressive than in developed nations.
The column was republished in an "In the News" box in a reputable textbook, Principles of Economics, p. 428 (Cengage, 2014). [58]
To me, this is not a reliable source, because it comes under "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The author although a respected economics journalist, is not an economist, and the column's appearance as an "In the News" item in a textbook does not necessarily mean that the authors of the book endorse its views. I note too that Porter does not unequivocally state that taxes are more progressive, just that several studies have concluded that.
I do not know whether U.S. taxes are more progressive. But I think better sources are needed in order to say they are.
TFD ( talk) 16:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Note in particular that the OECD policy note cited by the opinion piece says "household taxes are more progressive in the United States than in most EU countries" (point 7 on page 7) in the context of a paragraph that begins with the statement "The progressivity of household taxes varies little across countries despite large cross-country differences in the size of taxes." Cherry-picking a comparison from a study that says it makes little difference is not indicative of a reliable source, it is a hallmark of spin doctoring. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 16:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I wanted to know if the following sources are valid or are the authors just making information up regarding Akshardham Environmental violations. There is a heavy dispute at the talk page for the Akshardham page and I seem to not be understand why the contents cannot be posted without so much dispute. I provided the citations below and I am getting frustrated because I thought these sources are reliable but I am not clear if they are because certain editors are not convinced so I just wanted to get a better understanding.
Sources()
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)The article BAPS The article talk page: [62]
The Contents being discussed:
Last line in the introduction:
The temple has be subject to heavy criticism regarding its location from environmentalist who accuse that the temple is built illegally on banks of Yamuna River. They have denounced the temple as lacking environmental clearance and first culprit in Yamuna bed violation
Criticism section:
The monument has attracted significant environmental criticism and has contributed to slum displacement concerning its construction on the banks of the Yamuna River. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh stated, "Akshardham didn't get the clearance. Akshardham didn't apply for the environmental clearance." When pressed further, he stated "It has already happened. What is yet to happen, we can stop that...We can't demolish the Akshardham Complex. We have to protect the remaining river bed." Large protests from environmentalists who were against such a large structure on the riverbed have occurred. Recently, National Green Tribunal fined the temples management for “carrying out expansion without prior environmental clearance and asked a committee on revitalization of Yamuna to examine whether the expanded portion fell on the river's floodplains.” Non-Governmental Organization Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan and other environmental organizations have said the temple and several other structures are encroachments on the floodplains that can increase the risk of dangerous flooding. The construction of the temple resulted in Yamuna Pushta slum being demolished dislocating thousands of people. In 2004, the construction of the temple was challenged in the Supreme Court by the U.P. Employees Federation but the case was ultimately lost
Regards Swamiblue ( talk) 18:36, 30 September 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.
Hello, I would like to request some input on whether the three sources listed below would count as:
I would also ask for those willing to do this to take a few minutes to acquaint themselves with the dispute and the concerns listed on the DRN discussion section and on the talk page for the article in question. The disputed sources are:
Finally,Evangelis Zappas,a Vlach by descent,took the idea and ran with it,paving the way for the modern Olympics.
Some of the biggest national benefactors and personalities of the Greek history belong to Vlach families, like Pavlos Melas, Evangelos and Konstantinos Zappas, Stefanos and Ion.
Kolletes and Spyridon Lampros were Vlachs.So were the great national benefactors George Averoff,Nicolaos Stournares,Tositsas,Sinas,Evangelos and Konstantions Zappas...
Please put your thoughts on the DRN noticeboard section reserved for this discussion.
Cheers, Drcrazy102 ( talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Nancy Austin, writing in the now-defunct "contributor network" Yahoo! Voices, is cited as a source for three statements in Orange Socks which is about an unidentified murder victim. After I challenged the use of this source, it was reverted back in as being a reliable source.
I would like to know if Austin is considered a reliable source for the following in that article:
I believe this particular Nancy Austin is not the management consultant author Nancy Austin, who does not write about this sort of thing as can be seen at this extensive list of her publications via one particular source. I can't find any evidence of Nancy Austin being a published author elsewhere.
Thank you. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 11:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a "special repoert" from Mother Jones[ http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages. [63] It looks to me like an editorial opinion with no particular reason to give it any more weight than the hundreds of similar editorials on both sides of this politically charged issue. Is this a reliable source? -- CypherPunkyBrewster ( talk) 17:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The list is clearly a matter of opinion rather than one of objective fact, and should only be used where properly ascribed as opinion. It should also be noted that linking multiple persons together in any way because of inclusion on a list which is opinion might promote "guilt by association" which we must be careful not to do. (e.g. "George Gnarph and Adolf Hitler are both on Nils Garf's list of 'most hated persons'." would be an example of clear "guilt by association" synthesis, even if both of them are on Garf's list. Collect ( talk) 22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It's opinion, obviously. But it's noteworthy opinion, having been cited in high-end reliable sources such as The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Thus it can be useful if properly attributed. Whether it's appropriate for any particular article is an editorial question beyond the scope of this board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Opinion article Another editor and I discussed the article here [ [64]]. I would view the article as an opinion article based on some facts. It's opinion to call any organization part of "the dirty dozen". It's factual to say they supported research denying climate change, stating "the dirty dozen" is a WP:LABEL issue as well as an opinion. However, even then in most cases this article was just backing what others had said. If CNN says the same thing without the hyperbole, use it instead. To quote a bit of what I said in the above link:
If the MJ article makes claims but offers nothing that can be fact checked is it reliable? Again this makes it more of an opinion article. Furthermore, as I recall when searching for other articles that cited the MJ source, it was something like 3 after what 7 or 8 years. That suggests that other sources didn't find the MJ article to be worthy of weight on this subject. In the end I would say the article is an opinion article and should be treated as such. Furthermore I would suggest it's weight is very low and thus should be removed if other more reliable sources are saying the same thing (or better sources can be found). Specific note to the comment Short Brigade Harvester Boris made, yes it was cited in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. However, it was cited as an example of an article which made a claim. That is, the Oxford text simply says the MJ article exists and covers a subject. It does not say the content of the MJ article is correct, accurate etc. The Oxford authors were not relying on the MJ article as a factual reference. Springee ( talk) 15:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
An administrator of our project, who is opposed to the use of Mother Jones (magazine) in our project, is systematically adding the red-link author name Josh Harkinson in-text wherever this source is used, with the edit summary, "proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV." Is this a proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV require the author name in text? The source is a feature article, not a guest editorial. The source was subject to the editorial oversight of Mother Jones (magazine). The author name is available to curious readers in the ref. The author name in-text is unnecessary and distracting to our readers WP:RF. In-text attribution to Mother Jones (magazine) is necessary and sufficient. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 17:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing this website pop up increasingly as a source for articles dealing with the very touchy subjects of the conflicts in Yemen and Syria. To my eye, the website has a very obvious bias against the U.S. and Gulf states and toward the Syrian and Iranian governments (and their allies in Russia and Yemen). To wit, in this recently cited story, the use of terms like "Saudi-US aggression units" (obviously not WP:NPOV), "Yemeni national military" (the country is in a civil war between two factions claiming to be the Yemeni government, with different military units backing each), "fugitive President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi" (implies he is a fugitive from justice), and "Saudi-led aggression" (again, not NPOV; the Saudis claim they are responding to Hadi's request for assistance). There's also this recent story that refers to "Islamist rebel factions from the Free Syrian Army", a secular group led by defected military officers, and this story that uses phrases like "the Zionist entity" and "Zionist forces" in apparent reference to Israel. There are plenty more examples. This website does not seem like it meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source; for what it's worth, it also doesn't have a Wikipedia article about it, and it provides exceedingly little information on its website about who is backing it and where it is based (beyond "the Arab world"). I'm inclined to consider it propaganda in nature. Thoughts? - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In the article Human rights in Venezuela I gave [1] as reference for the text of an open letter by experts to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch. Another editor maintains the source is not reliable and, therefore, I can't use it. I have no information on any political slant of the source, but I think this is immaterial since the text is genuine. I would like to have more opinions. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
References
This topic is about http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm as either WP:MEDRS-compliant source or vanity press, when entered as a source at Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction. The source is PubMed but not MedLine indexed.
Evidence for being predatory:
with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.
Jeffrey Beall (18 February 2014), Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers, Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"Fees paid by authors" is the very definition of vanity press. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals
Tgeorgescu is gaming the system by blocking a PubMed indexed, peer-reviewed review of the literature related to the neuroscience of porn addiction. Tgeorgescu has blocked inclusion of this review based on 18 month old blog post has since been refuted by Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Furthermore, MDPI responded to Jeffrey Beall's allegations prior to the OASPA ruling. Since Beall had no response to MDPI, nor OASPA it must be assumed that there exists no official support for the blog post. Finally and most telling, Tgeorgescu has cited nothing specific to the Journal Behavioral Sciences, nor has Tgeorgescu refuted a single word of the review.
A simple fact - Open access journals, which accept pay, are in fact accepted as sources on Wikipedia, including MDPI. Until you can demonstrate that MDPI studies have been blocked from Wikipedia, you are gaming the system (gate-keeping).
Further evidence that Tgeorgescu is gate-keeping both Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction is that he permits Ley, et al, which is not PubMed indexed, and published by a suspect Journal, Current Sexual Health Reports. The Journal Behan publishing in 2004, went on hiatus in 2008, only to be resurrected in 2014, just in time to feature Ley et al. It's well established that the Ley et al. editor, Charles Moser, has been a long-time vocal critic of porn and sex addiction, while David Ley is the author of the Myth of Sex Addiction. Ley et al has been exposed as nothing more than a biased an unsupported piece of propaganda
It must be stated that blogger Jeffrey Beall's opinion contains no more weight than any other Internet blogger. He has no official status in any organization that governs academic publishing. Beall has been roundly criticized for being judge. jury, and executioner, while being accountable to no one. A few of the Many scholar have critiqued Beall:
1) Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall
QUOTED "Since I first became aware of Beall’s List, however, I have been following some of Beall’s work with growing unease. Here and there some (to me) distasteful political ideology peeked through (with my pragmatic mindset, any kind of ideology makes me queasy), but you don’t have to agree with somebody all the time to agree with them some of the time. But now, in a recent screed, he has crossed the line."
2) Should We Retire the Term “Predatory Publishing”?
QUOTED "Beall’s List has been controversial since its establishment for a variety of reasons, some of them obvious (no publisher, whether legitimate or not, appreciates being publicly branded a “predator”), and some of them less so. One of the more subtle reasons for the controversy around Beall’s List lies in the fact that it focuses entirely on OA publishing. Predictably, this has aroused the ire of many in the OA community, who have accused Beall of targeting these publishers out of an animus towards OA itself—a charge to which Beall provided a fair amount of ammunition when he wrote an impassioned attack on the OA movement in the journal tripleC."
QUOTED: Beall’s list has become a go-to tool and has even been featured in The New York Times,5 but it is not the final word on predatory publishing, partially because Beall himself has a complicated, and not entirely supportive, attitude toward OA in general. Another concerning aspect of Beall’s work is his evaluation of OA publishers from less economically developed countries. Crawford, Karen Coyle, and Jill Emery have all noted Beall’s bias against these publishers.10,11,12
4) Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall.
QUOTED: I didn’t read all of Beall’s blog posts. I honestly don’t know whether the misleading items noted above are typical or special cases. As with most library folk, I was appalled when a publisher attempted to sue Beall for libel—but being sued for unfortunate reasons doesn’t automatically make the defendant a saint. As with a number of other people who’ve been involved with and writing about OA for years, I was growing increasingly nervous about Beall’s growing stridency about “predatory” OA publishers— and amazement that there never seem to be sketchy or predatory subscription publishers, even among those charging high page charges and other article fees.
5) A Response to Jeffrey Beall’s Critique of Open Access
QUOTED: Beall’s critiques of open access are not always as factual as they could be, so as an open access advocate I am concerned when his polemics are presented to an academic audience that may not know all the facts.
In summary, Tgeorgescu is basing his entire argument on a single blogger who has clear bias and who has been roundly criticized. The accusations by Beall against MDPI have been refuted or addressed by both MDPI and the OASPA. Most importantly, there exists no official Wikimedia statement banning MDPI studies. User Tgeorgescu proves his bias by accepting a review (Ley et al.) from a minor journal, which took a 6- yaer hiatus, has only publsihed for a few yaers is not PubMed indexed - yet he blocks this PubMed indexed review. The evidence is clear that Tgeorgescu is acting as the gate-keeper for porn-related Wiki pages. Gaborlewis ( talk) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been having a discussion in the Jayce & the Wheeled Warriors article regarding the reliability of a source that posted scans of a comic strip that appeared in a French tv guide during 1987.
For example [71].The exact statement is
An uncredited, unfinished comic based on the series was published in the French comic magazine Pif Gadget #922. The 13-page adventure ended on a cliffhanger as the next issue did not include the follow-up story and the conclusion to that story was never published in Pif Gadget. It included characters created specifically for the comic, such as a white-haired young sorceress called Algora who was an ally of Saw Boss. The story, entitled "Le Sortilège d'Algora" ("Algora's Spell") was later re-printed and completed in Poche Junior, a free supplement for younger readers to the French television listing magazine Télé Poche, in several installments: Poche Junior #1 (May 1987),[14] Poche Junior #2 (May 1987),[15] Poche Junior #17 (August 1987),[16] Poche Junior n° 23 (October 1987),[17] and Poche Junior n° 25 (October 1987).[18]
The links provided are of a blog that has the scans available online. The discussion is regarding the fact that this is a blog and as such unreliable. However, the scans posted are of official publications, can probably be found and bought from collectors if so desired, and as such should be considered reliable regardless of being posted on a blog. A point was made that the scans could have been altered and I would agree if it concerned just an image of the guide. However, the entire thing was scanned and posted along with publication dates. So I figure this should be considered a reliable source. Maybe not based on location, but certainly on content provided. If it isn't, how would content such as this ever be verified? JalGorda ( talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
Mark Lane (author), specifically this magazine article:
Lane, Mark (November 1977).
"The Mysterious Death of a Key JFK Witness" (PDF). Gallery: 41–43, 106–107, 110, 112, 114. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) (Note that some images in pdf are NSFW.)
2. Article.
George de Mohrenschildt
3. Content. The source is used multiple times in the article. The following are two examples:
Mark Lane has plenty of supporters, but he has also frequently been described as a conspiracy theorist, and his critics state that the assertions in his writings are based on hearsay, innuendo, and rumor; cherry-picking of facts; or just plain fabrication (e.g. [72]). His "investigative report" in Gallery does appear to rely heavily on hearsay from another conspiracy theorist, Willem Oltmans, to state that George de Mohrenschildt was going to spill the bean on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Are articles on Thought Catalog considered reliable/notable for wikipedia? While many notable people publish on Thought Catalog, I am referring to content written by people who are otherwise un-notable. The website's policy for publishing articles is found here. In particular, I am wondering if the website would be considered acceptable for the relevant sentence currently in the lead at this article: Mirror Mirror (M2M song). Thanks in advance. Freikorp ( talk) 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
"Mining the tech world for lively and meaningful tales and analysis. Pitch guidelines here: https://medium.com/@lotto/would-you-like-to-pitch-medium-s-in-house-publications-matter-and-backchannel-27cb772e6705"
Over at Norman Borlaug, the idea that there was a food shortage in India in the mid-1960s has been challenged by SageRad here claiming the source is "hagiographic". There's a little tweaking that can be done on the text, but the idea that's mainly being challenged is that there was a food shortage at all. The source is from the journal Science from its science news section. It's an article on Borlaug receiving the Nobel peace prize and a bit of his general biography. The text is:
One need only recall the close brush with famine on the Indian-Pakistan subcontinent in 1966 and 1967, a famine that was averted only by shipping one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop to India, and the projection of massive famine in Asia in the 1970's, to realize that the new seeds are a godsend. [73]
The seeds are in reference to the varieties that resulted in Borlaug's Nobel prize and is part of the second paragraph here. There isn't a whole lot of editor traffic on the article in the time it's been on my watchlist, so could some folks here comment on the reliability of this source in terms of saying there was a food shortage, crop failure, etc.? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's be accurate. I challenged the content: 'During the mid-1960s, the Indian subcontinent was at war and experiencing widespread famine[citation needed] and starvation...
Of course i know there were food shortages in Bihar. I know people died. I know there was a famine that Indian state. It is described on Wikipedia here. The section does begin with "The Bihar famine of 1966–7 was a minor famine with relatively very few deaths from starvation as compared to the famines of the British era."
I was also not challenging the journal Science as a source, in general. I was challenging the interpretation of the source article into the content that was in the Wikipedia article.
You have misrepresented the whole issue on many levels. I hope that was not deliberate, but i'd like to work with you, and we need to be accurate in order to do so. SageRad ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Undent, science is generally an RS, though not neccessarily every opinion piece published in it: but this does nothing for your dispute. Sometimes RSs will be mistaken, and it isn't at all clear that the cite actually supports the statement. Judging from the wiki page on indian famines, the statement "During the mid-1960s, the Indian subcontinent was at war and experiencing widespread famine[citation needed] and starvation" appears to be factually incorrect. The definition of widespread is debatable, but...oh hell I'mma rephrase it myself. This really seems like a content dispute rather than a RS issue though.
78.144.221.190 (
talk) 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
According to an independent investigation, this is a fake news site that pumps itself with fake twitter and Google+ followers: http://inc42.com/longform/nextbigwhat-fake-social-media-ethical/. Less reliable sources (e.g. quora.com) say that it's a paid advertorial site a la YourStory. It appears that a lot of Indian startups use it for Wikipedia articles (see external links search), many of whom are created with severe conflicts of interest or undisclosed paid editing; details are at WP:COIN#YourStory.com ( permalink). - Brianhe ( talk) 19:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
See the sources added in this edit reliable? The editor has been edit-warring to keep them in the article, and has not joined the discussion at the talk page. 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I imagine this has been considered long since, but I can't find it anywhere: how do we stand on the verifiability of material sourced from programme booklets? Very often – e.g. at the Royal Opera House, National Theatre or Barbican Centre – they contain essays and articles by leading experts in the relevant field, and they obviously meet Wikipedia's definition of "made available to the public in some form". But on the whole they are sold or given out on the day of the performance and are not obtainable afterwards. The archivists of the major companies will keep copies – and in my experience have been very helpful in providing details from them – and some museums and academic institutions maintain theatre collections, but is this enough to satisfy the verifiability criterion? Grateful for guidance on this. – Tim riley talk 07:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yourstory.com is clearly not a RS: they exist as a promo platform as described by themselves at "yourstory.com/testimonials/" and "yourstory.com/frequently-asked-questions/". Unfortunately this has been used as a source in many India-related articles [75]. Brianhe ( talk) 17:31, 7 October 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 195 | Archive 196 | Archive 197 | Archive 198 | Archive 199 | Archive 200 |
Founder-slash-funding-source is redlinked Mati Kochavi; redlinked corporation Vocativ LLC is listed by Bloomberg, so they are a legit legal entity, albeit Bloomberg lists no details beyond corp-name and corp-website. [1] Publication itself *is* bluelinked, Vocativ. Being used in mainspace [2] for about two dozen nominally-WP:RS purposes, mostly "edgy" political-articles.
Also found in some BLP-articles, which are once again, mostly "edgy" politics-related BLP-articles.
Almost certainly qualifies prima facie as being WP:RS, to my wiki-eyes. They have professional editorial-oversight, and they use the real legal name of the founder. "Q: How big is your staff? A: Right now we’re over 50 people strong, and growing. We come from an array of pure-play digital and traditional media sources, both text and video. We’re learning a lot about creating a next-generation news operation. And we’re having fun. ...Q: So where’s the money coming from? A: We are privately funded, which gives us room to be ambitious and grow without having to compromise our quality. Our founder is Mati Kochavi, a global entrepreneur. Q: Does he call any shots when it comes to editorial content? A: No. We maintain a firewall between our founder and the daily editorial operation. ..." [6] Besides the founder, they have a corporation that can also be sued. [7] [8] They don't let anybody edit (reader contributions are marked with the edgy new lingo My POV rather than Letters to the Editor but the principle is the same -- non-journalistic contributions from the peanut gallery are marked as such right on the tin). They use real names for journalist-pieces, and at least some of the staff-writers say they used to work at PrintMagazinesIveActuallyHeardOf before joining vocativ.
But is it, you know, REALLY wiki-reliable? Not found in WP:RSN archives. [9] Honest question, never heard of these people before, not interested in removing the existing couple-dozen ref-cites that invoke Vocativ as a wiki-reliable publisher, not trying to get rid of the wiki-notability of the associated articles. (Methinks Vladimir Putin would probably not react well were his BLP-article to be sent to AfD... but since he has 442 cites besides vocativ prolly he's not too worried about the possibility either. Now, per WP:IAR, we actually *could* just delete his article... after all, Russia recently blocked wikipedia, so international geopolitical game theory says that tit for tat strategy applies, right? :-) Thanks, 75.108.94.227 ( talk) 21:10, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
Is Long War Journal a reliable source? http://www.longwarjournal.org/ Volunteer Marek is challenging this source and claiming it is unreliable.
I'm asking in general for all terrorist related articles. Because its not just me who is using it, type in longwarjournal into the search box and you will find many other wikipedia articles citing longwarjournal as a source.
Such as 2015 Park Palace guesthouse attack, Abdullah Said al Libi, Amirli, Yathrib, Iraq, 055 Brigade, First Battle of Tikrit, Raskamboni Movement, Adnan Gulshair el Shukrijumah, Afghan National Army, List of Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant members, Ahmed Abdi Godane, Afghan National Civil Order Police, 201st Corps (Afghanistan), Nasir al-Wuhayshi, Daveed Gartenstein-Ross, Qari Hussain, 1st Division (Iraq), Operation Augurs of Prosperity, Sadr City, Iraqi Special Operations Forces, Mullah Mohammad Hasan , Iraqi Navy, Saudi detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Tehrik-e-Jafaria, Iraqi Light Armored Vehicle, Mukhtar Army, Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula, Camp Speicher.
Long War Journal has also been cited by Academics in books published by Columbia University Press, Georgetown University Press, University of Pennsylvania Press, Naval Institute Press United States Naval Institute, in addition to New York Times (two of which were on the newspaper's front page), [1] [2] [3] Reuters, [4] Associated Press, [5] United Press International, [6] [7] [8] Sunday Times, [9] The Hindu, [10] Cable News Network, [11] the Times of India, [12] The Australian, [13] CTC Sentinel, [14] Time, [15] The Nation, [16] Washington Times, [17] and The Atlantic. [18] Marc Thiessen in the the Washington Post. [19] and by Pulitzer Prize-winning reporter Thomas E. Ricks in The Gamble. [20]
Some news organizations have an entire category devoted to articles where they cited Long War Journal on articles about terrorist groups such as Christian Science Monitor and The Daily Star
See the sources at Bill_Roggio#Long_War_Journal.
References
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help)
{{
cite news}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help)
The 'Hero' of the War on Terror
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite magazine}}
: |archive-date=
/ |archive-url=
timestamp mismatch; November 5, 2012 suggested (
help)
Rajmaan ( talk) 04:00, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Editor Jajhill has been adding analysis from the Koch-founded Cato Institute to several US presidential candidate articles, for example Hillary Clinton and Ted Cruz. I believe this is problematic inasmuch as the Cato Institute is not independent of the subjects. While the material is attributed, it is presented as authoritative and is probably WP:UNDUE. I would like to know what other editor's think about this. - Mr X 18:28, 7 September 2015 (UTC)
References
Maybe "describes" in place of "Identifies"? Writegeist ( talk) 04:59, 8 September 2015 (UTC)
The Cato Institute identifies Clinton as a "interventionist" during her U.S. Senate tenure, indicating a protectionist, anti- market, and pro- subsidies voting record. [1]
References
I think Cato is reliable for a libertarian perspective on things, though we should be careful to include their criteria for ratings and not our interpretations of them. If "anti-market" is not directly stated it should be deleted. I am not sure why would we need a "counter-view", unless Cato is actually the only source quoted in a section. Dimadick ( talk) 11:47, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
.But his spokesman, McClellan, said Bush "has consistently supported closing the gun show loophole for a number of years." As for why he did not back Danburg's bill--which would have angered the gun lobby here--McClellan said Bush thinks it is up to Congress to deal with the loophole. "Federal legislation created it," McClellan said. "Federal legislation should close it."
The original source and quote used by Rolling Stone... [13] (tenth paragraph from the bottom)
Bush justifies those positions as narrow disagreements over jurisdiction. Background checks are a good idea, he says, but because federal law created the gun-show loophole, federal law ought to correct it. That's why he didn't back Danburg's bill, says his spokesman Scott McClellan.
I presented the sources and quotes on the talk page but received the same answer here..."It's Dan Baum's characterization of what Scott McClellan said. To attribute it all to McClellan in the manner in question isn't necessarily his words, so it's erroneous. The next paragraph in the source shows a direct quote, which is preferable, though it deviates from the topic at hand in this article unfortunately. Same sort of issue with the second source." Darknipples ( talk) 19:22, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
(Additional/more specific objection by said editor) "This diff is also relevant, as it is when the quotation marks were added. Adding them to my comment above as well, as they are a large part of the issue." Darknipples ( talk) 00:39, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
I'd like to clarify my position. What Godsy has done here [18], is to remove the more relative aspect of this reference (about GSL), and leave the text in regard to background checks. While background checks are relevant to GSL, they are not the same thing. The part about Bush's views on GSL are even more relevant. I'm fine with tweaking it so that all the necessary attributes are clear, and making sure no one perceives it as being stated in "Wikipedia's voice", but to exclude it seems to completely miss the point. Darknipples ( talk) 04:28, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
https://www.indiegogo.com, specifically
https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/the-man-behind-the-suit#/story authored by Janett Salas
2. Article.
Robert DeProspero
3. Content. There is a feature-length documentary about Robert DeProspero in post-production called "The Man Behind the Suit: a documentary on Robert DeProspero".
Salas authored this article, which includes a brief fundraising interview with DeProspero;
User:Janettsalas also added the material and source to the article. While there may be a COI, I don't think that necessarily affects how we judge the reliability of the source. It is clear to me that the content is accurate and is backed-up by the source, however, the source is self-published. Looking for thoughts on this and other factors that may affect suitability for inclusion (e.g.
WP:WEIGHT). -
Location (
talk) 14:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
These articles are currently in use in this article. I have not included the content they are being used to cite because there are so many sources and they are being used to cite roughly the same things. Looking at many of these sources, some of them cite each other (e.g. Fox News cites AP), and many others them have nearly the same structure and content. Under WP:NEWSORG, it states that "Republished stories are not considered separate sources, but one source, which has simply appeared in multiple venues." Even if one source is selected among each group, roughly all of the same content in the article can still be properly sourced from my understanding of the sources. There is currently an ongoing discussion about this, but since this should be decided on a case-by-case and there are many articles, a few more seasoned opinions could help.
Articles about the initial arrest in China
Hwang Chul-kyu, who is in charge of international crime cases in Ministry of Justice, announced on May 16 that, "Chinese police informed us that a man caught in Beijing on May 1 turned out to be Jeong Myeong-seok after comparing fingerprints."
Jung has been wanted by Korean police, for fraud, rape and embezzlement, since he fled the country in June 1999. The pseudo-religious leader was placed on the Interpol wanted list in 2002.
Articles about the extradition from China
He'd been on Korean wanted lists since 1999 (and the Interpol Red Notice since 2004) after fleeing the country after charges of rape emerged. While overseas, he made constant headlines for allegedly raping female devotees in various countries.
Jung was taken directly to the Seoul Central Public Prosecutors' Office from the airport. Prosecutors began questioning Jung after his arrival regarding nine complaints filed against him on charges that include embezzlement and sexual assault.
Articles about the initial six-year sentence
A South Korean court on Tuesday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said. Jung, 63, the leader of the Jesus Morning Star sect (JMS), fled to China from South Korea in 2001 where he had been charged with selecting followers from photographs and then forcing them to have sex with him.
Notorious cult leader Jung Myung-seok received Tuesday a six-year prison sentence for raping and sexually abusing his female followers.
서울중앙지법 형사26부(재판장 배기열)는 12일 여자 신도들을 성폭행한 혐의로 구속기소된 JMS(기독교복음선교회) 총재 정명석(63)씨에게 징역 6년을 선고했다. (The Seoul Central District Court No. 26 Criminal Division (Justice Bae Ki-yeol) delivered a prison sentence of six years to JMS President Jung Myung-seok, 63, who had been arrested and charged with raping 12 female followers.)
A South Korean court yesterday sentenced Jung Myung-seok, the leader of a fringe religious sect, to six years in jail for raping female followers, a court official said.... Former members have told the Seoul court that young and attractive women were presented to Jung as 'gifts' and he forced them into sex as a part of a purification ritual.
{{
cite news}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |publisher=
(
help)Thank you for your help. Phoenix0316 ( talk!) 06:32, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
If I may add a comment here, my understanding of the NewsOrg policy under WP:Reliable Sources is that the stories have to be 'republished' or 'reprinted'. My understanding of those terms is that the news article has to be copied from one news organization (such as from the Associated Press) to another news organization, to be republished by the latter organization. With that understanding, I have looked at the sources [[User: Phoenix0316] listed above and it would appear that in relation to the first section on the subject of "Arrest in China", article 5 is a reprint of article 3, under the second section on the "extradition from China" article 4 appears to be a reprint of article 2, and under the third section on the "initial six year sentence", article 4 appears to be a reprint of article 1. As such should the reprinted articles be removed so that two citations of the same source can accurately be reflected to be one source, as per WP:Overcite? CollinsBK ( talk) 08:09, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Sources:
Poughkeepsie Journal and
Hudson Valley Magazine
Article:
List of oldest living people
Content: The table entry on Vera Van Wagner seen in
this revision of the page, particularly for her date of birth.
Some editors object to use of these sources for two reasons: a) the Poughkeepsie Journal says that the person's age has not been validated by the GRG so the person's entry shouldn't be included, and b) age validation is a recognised field of study and so only sources that perform age validation can be used for birth dates; entries sourced to news articles should be identified as age claims, not verified ages. Other editors (including myself) think that these two news sources are reliable sources for this person's date of birth and her age.
This question involves the World's Oldest People wikiproject. There is a separate but related RfC going on asking whether table entries in these articles should indicate which entries have been validated by an age validation agency at WT:WOP.
Thank you for any help you can provide. Ca2james ( talk) 01:44, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
Her claim is pending with the GrG right now, ie it has been rejected by them. The only tables should be the GrG tables.— Preceding
unsigned comment added by
166.170.51.140 (
talk •
contribs) 23:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
There is an ongoing dispute over Andy Whitfield's birth date and, consequently, his age at death. Pasting in the work already done by Niteshift36 ( talk · contribs) and others:
Writing "age 37" or "born in 1974" for Andy Whitfield, of Sydney:
Please help sort this out. It seems obvious to me which is correct, but there's so much noise on Talk:Andy Whitfield, it's impossible to get a consensus, and certain people are staunchly refusing to allow a birth date to be added to the article at all. Krychek ( talk) 15:27, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
Another editor is disputing inclusion of the Lumia 920T having an Adreno 320 GPU at Nokia Lumia 920. I contend it should be included, per the following sources:
Can those sources be considered reliable enough to support the inclusion of that information? Indrek ( talk) 12:54, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
[30] is being insisted upon as a source for a claim:
With a talk page comment:
This has been previously discussed and found not to be proper for the Cooper biography, and I fear the source may not meet WP:RS in the first place. I am absolutely barred by ArbCom from touching this again as it is now asserted (apparently) by its proponent to be a "political issue" and not a "biographical issue." Other opinions welcomed. Collect ( talk) 15:21, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
I just wanted to post that there's unsurprisingly a new debate over TorrentFreak at Talk:The Pirate Bay#torrentfreak.com. I'm mostly saying this here to attract more people to the discussion and because it's growing heated very quickly. Previous RSN posts have included this and this, and they have been referenced in this new discussion with some concern over their outcomes. — 烏Γ ( kaw), 12:26, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
It is not considered a blog. CFCF 💌 📧 14:12, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
For the good of the net: The Pirate Bay as strategic sovereign; Andersson, Jonas; Culture Machine, 2009, Vol.10, pp.64-108 [Peer Reviewed Journal] shows how a TorrentFreak article is referenced in a scientific journal. -- Ondertitel ( talk) 00:12, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
There's absolutely nothing wrong with using a non-neutral source, and as I mentioned on the talk page, there are very few sources in any subject area that could possibly be described as neutral. The fact that torrentfreak uses a non-neutral headline does not at all invalidate them as a source. Opinions in torrentfreak articles should only be included on Wikipedia with the regular opinion disclaimers, but the fact that their articles are frequently opinionated do not make them an invalid source for matters of simple fact. I have no idea why you think the fact that they have run editorials by Peter Sunde speaks against their reliability - many news sources run editorials by people who have opinions and/or people who are involved in controversial stuff.
— Kevin (kgorman-ucb) [34]
A source does not become unreliable just by publishing opinions favorable to a political party which one Wikipedian does not like. Squidfryerchef has said it well: The numerous citations of Torrentfreak in publications which are uncontroversially regarded as reliable sources (see also Google Scholar) show that the site has a reputation of being citeable with regard to its (limited) area of expertise. Given this reputation outside Wikipedia, it is irrelevant whether a Wikipedian is "struggling" to understand why all these scholarly articles, reputable newspapers etc. chose to cite TorrentFreak. Speculating about their editorial process also doesn't override this evidence.
— HaeB [35]
Given the examples so far, we may have to rethink prior consensus, and limit it to claims about themselves and the like. A TorrentFreak doesn't appear to lend much, if any, weight beyond. --
Ronz (
talk) 17:38, 18 September 2015 (UTC)
Diff [39]
References (text) already used & already cited...
Sources (citations) added (in addition to original cites in article body)...
Relevant article talk page section [42]. Darknipples ( talk) 08:32, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The page List of vaping bans in the United States. Currently no discussion on this source is on the talk page. The source "States and Municipalities with Laws Regulating Use of Electronic Cigarettes"
This source is produced by the "Americans for nonsmokers rights foundation" [43] an advocacy group. I see nor can find any indication that they are known for fact checking or that they have any editorial control. I am sure the information can and should be cited to reliable sources like news sites. AlbinoFerret 15:32, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi,
I'd like to list my band "The Rhythm and Blues Brothers" http://www.therhythmandbluesbrothers.co.uk/ on wikipedia, however I understand that you have a Notability policy in place for such topics.
I just wanted to know, whether we qualify as we have been featured on the James Whale Radio show - for BBC Essex in the UK recently, please let me know if this can be accommodated for.
Regards.
Taylan Oliver. (Band Manager) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Taylanoliver24 ( talk • contribs) 20:33, 23 September 2015 (UTC+9)
Hey all, I've noticed a flare-up of activity with users (for instance this one and this one) submitting WomansEra.com as a reference. I know that Arjayay has been encountering this a ton and reverting. Is anyone aware of this publication? Based on this poorly sourced draft article it's claimed that the mag has been around since 1973. A quick Google image search seems to support that they've produced a number of printed covers. The website doesn't strike me as very professional-looking, and this review is poorly written with consistently incorrect capitalization, misspelling of "title", etc. This seems like it would run afoul of the WP:RS requirement that our sources should have a clear editorial policy, but maybe it's just a crappy translation? I want to be sure we're being fair and not just automatically dismissive. Your thoughts are solicited. If this magazine isn't considered reliable and if the content keeps getting submitted, we might consider requesting that it be added to the spam blacklist to prevent future disruption. Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 16:37, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
From my talk page:
I look at vault.com once again, to figure out whether it is a reliable source for their ranking, and the following their statement raises a red flag for me: "Vault’s influential company rankings, ratings and reviews are sourced and verified through ongoing directed surveys of active employees and enrolled students. Vault also welcomes current and previous employees and students who were unable to participate in the surveys, to submit reviews on their experiences, salaries, interviews and more." There is no transparency it their rankings, just one more "gradeMyTeacher" or "yelp" crowdsourced opinion collection, and I would suggest to remove its rankings from wikipedia as vanity puffery (by a number of anons, such as recent
Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:23, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
P.S. GermanJoe wrote there were 200 hits, but today I see already 325.
So I would guess that vault.com is being spammed into wikipedia. Staszek Lem ( talk) 22:37, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
In order to properly reflect a company's status as an employer within the consulting industry, the Vault Consulting 50 for 2016 is based on the following weighted formula:
30 percent prestige 15 percent satisfaction 15 percent compensation 10 percent firm culture 10 percent work-life balance 10 percent overall business outlook 5 percent promotion policies 5 percent ability to challenge
As ever, our survey is only open to consultants who are currently employed at reputable firms in the industry. When rating quality of life issues, consultants are only permitted to rate their own firm. For prestige and practice area rankings, however, consultants are only allowed to rate competitors, and NOT their own firms. Alaynestone ( talk) 18:01, 16 September 2015 (UTC)
Clarification: When I wrote " nothing is known about their ranking: the expertise of rankers, the criteria, the coverage, etc. " I meant nothing is is known about vault.com from independent sources. They can write whatever they want about themselves. They can claim 17,000 experts busily reviewing companies when for all we know they are hiring an Indian sweatshop to browse the web. You have to present a solid proof that the company is reputable. Staszek Lem ( talk) 00:19, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
Summary Let me see if I can take the concerns and rebuttals specific to Vault (not the side tangent about the law firm) and summarize. Did I miss anything?
On the Dash_(cryptocurrency) page, anonymous users from forums and blogs like bitcointalk.org, devtome.com, and dashdot.io are used as sources for information in the last part of the History section. This appears to violate the rules against using self-published sources ( WP:RS). The language of the edits also use poor grammar, spelling, and weasel words. I've tried adding templates indicating such and attempted to direct the discussion to the Talk page but the editor (IP address 75.93.11.94) removes my edits and/or replaces them with another questionable source.
Any advice on how to move forward from here without edit warring? Thanks. Raze182 ( talk) 05:53, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The article that the source is supporting is all bands, genre. A combination of Hardcore Punk and Thrash Metal, Metalcore is among the most popular of the subgenres. Double-bass driven, tuned-down riffs punctuated by half-time breakdowns provide the foundation for the shouted vocals. Century Media and Medal Blade records saw huge success for the genre with several albums cracking the top ten of the Billboard Top 200. Quite an accomplishment. Examples: Hatebreed, Bury Your Dead, Killswitch Engage, While She Sleeps, Asking Alexandria, Bleeding Through, Integrity, Unearth, Hogan's Heroes, As I Lay Dying, God Forbid, Shadows Fall.
Metalcore. Examples: Hatebreed, Bury Your Dead, Killswitch Engage, While She Sleeps, Asking Alexandria, Bleeding Through, Integrity, Unearth, Hogan's Heroes, As I Lay Dying, God Forbid, Shadows Fall.
[51] Metalcore— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) 11:18, 25 September 2015(UTC+9)
The article the source is supporting that Hogan's Heroes just like most bands who have Hardcore punk mixed with Heavy Metal, have been labeled these genres Metallic Hardcore, Hardcore Punk, Metalcore, Crossover Thrash and Skate Punk. That the band is seminal in the development of Metallic Hardcore, Metalcore, Skate punk, and Crossover thrash.
Hogan's Heroes formed in 1984. The band was seminal in the development of metallic hardcore, skatepunk, metalcore and crossover thrash
http://www.metalmusicarchives.com/artist/hogans-heroes — Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) 11:45, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
Who is he? Where else has he written? This is the type of information you need to bring here to demonstrate that the source is reliable. Woodroar ( talk) 04:38, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Is retractionwatch.com a "reliable source" for claims about living persons? Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#Ariel_Fernandez has editors discussing the issues raised about that blog, and clearly the issue is implicit as to whether it is a reliable source for the purposes to which it is proposed being used or accepted. Collect ( talk) 12:16, 17 September 2015 (UTC)
The site http://answering-islam.org/ is used on 226 Wikipedia pages, 35 of them articles. [53]
It appears to be a Christian site that gives a "answer" to Islam, with anonymous authors. I don't see any way it could be considered a reliable source.
Given how many christian apologists use this site as an authority, I predict a storm of criticism, edit warring, etc. if I make any attempt to remove those citations. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 05:04, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
The article the source is supporting that Earth Crisis, Integrity, Hogan's Heroes are the first three Metalcore bands. [54] bottom of page, below reviews is original article about Metalcore.
Первые металкор группы, такие как Earth Crisis, Integrity, Hogan's Heroes, музыкально ближе к хардкор-панку, а более поздние, например Trivium, Atreyu, Bleeding Through и Unearth, больше склоняются в сторону метала.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) 11:32, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
Hello, The article that the source is supporting is the band genre Hogan's Heroes at Metalcore. Thank You for your time. [55] CombatMarshmallow ( talk) 00:21, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Hogan's Heroes - Metalcore
— Preceding unsigned comment added by CombatMarshmallow ( talk • contribs) 10:50, 25 September 2015 (UTC+9)
inweekly
I would really appreciate help to see if I am right at the discussion Talk:Serbs_of_Croatia#Serbs_as_.22constitutive.22_nation_in_Socialist_Republic_of_Croatia. The issue is about a constitutional change that happened in 1990 in Croatia which is controversial and uncomfortable for Croatians nowadays. The situation at the discussion is the following: me alone having provided 15 sources to back up a statement versus a group of Croatian editors challenging it however lacking sources (well, one editor claims there is one, in Croatian, but we cannot verify it). A RfC was made but no neutral participants jumped in. After about 3 weeks of discussion with some editors who challenged the statement admitted they could do nothing, I was bold and I added the 15-sources backed statement, with no sources contradicting it, to the article ( my edit). In the edit I choosed some among the 15 sources I presented at the talk-page. Neverless, I was reverted ( diff). At that point the main objection at the discussion was that I failed to provide sources that would explain what the "constituent nation" exactly means, and without the exact explanation, the 15-sources backed statement couldn't go to the article... OK, I said, some of my 15 sources deal with the issue more in detail, it is not a problem for me to add it, and I did it ( [57]). For time being I was not reverted yet, however, as it can be seen at the discussion (at recent comments by Direktor), one editor is challenging an author of one of my sources, Snežana Trifunovska. Her book I am using is: Yugoslavia Through Documents: From Its Creation to Its Dissolution. Is the challenging of her book as source correct? FkpCascais ( talk) 21:40, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I'm wondering if theScoreesports.com is a reliable source to be used on League of Legends Pro League.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 04:20, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
This is a long paragraph, please forgive me.
Hello, I was trying to edit the starchild skull article, and am wondering if these sources are acceptable:
Cradleboarding: http://www.starchildproject.com/cradleboarding.htm#
Hydrocephalus: http://www.starchildproject.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=27&Itemid=294&catid=13
The reasoning behind this is that the current version of the aforementioned article is very one-sided (the NPOV is rather absent). I did write what I thought was a neutral article, listing both sides and their sources, but I was accused of using an "unreliable" source. Both of the sources above were based on a report written by Dr. Ted Robinson. If these sources were written by a medical expert, I can see no reason as to why they are invalid. The current source being used was written by Dr. Novella, so why can't a source based on Dr. Robinson's report be used? I feel that the Starchild project IS reliable, and can still be cited without breaking WP:NPOV.
The only reason I don't see Dr Robinson's report cited is because it was published on what some of the editors of the starchild skull article were labeling a "fringe" source. The starchild project has a list of credible sources and medical experts who examined the skull. The Novella source is purely conjecture, as he never examined the skull in detail, and already had a bias against the starchild skull. The starchild project can be any bit as reliable as Steven novella, even more-so, as they, unlike novella, are the foremost experts on the starchild skull, that can be found, because they have a list of medical experts, and doctors, who can back up their statements and information. This is a case of one, biased medical expert, whose writing is nothing but opinion and conjecture, versus 11 experts who took time to examine the skull, without a prior bias toward, or against, the starchild skull. This, and also, the ambiguity of the article, not only suggest bias, but maybe even a sort of "censorship". I appreciate any input from you. EBenderednebE ( talk) 20:43, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I was wondering if this kind of biographical memoir is considered to be a primary source for Jordi Folch Pi. It was apparently written by two of Folch's students who are now well-established scientists themselves, but the disclaimer on the first page of the source states "Any opinions expressed in this memoir are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the National Academy of Sciences." I tagged it as a primary source, but will gladly correct that if it's not since it's being extensively cited throughout the article. FWIW, the authors do cite quite a few sources themselves which may be considered independent enough to support what written in the memoir. Thanks in advance. - Marchjuly ( talk) 10:57, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
Can the following source be used in United States to say that taxes in the U.S. are more progressive than in developed nations.
The column was republished in an "In the News" box in a reputable textbook, Principles of Economics, p. 428 (Cengage, 2014). [58]
To me, this is not a reliable source, because it comes under "News organizations": "Editorial commentary, analysis and opinion pieces...are rarely reliable for statements of fact." The author although a respected economics journalist, is not an economist, and the column's appearance as an "In the News" item in a textbook does not necessarily mean that the authors of the book endorse its views. I note too that Porter does not unequivocally state that taxes are more progressive, just that several studies have concluded that.
I do not know whether U.S. taxes are more progressive. But I think better sources are needed in order to say they are.
TFD ( talk) 16:06, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
Note in particular that the OECD policy note cited by the opinion piece says "household taxes are more progressive in the United States than in most EU countries" (point 7 on page 7) in the context of a paragraph that begins with the statement "The progressivity of household taxes varies little across countries despite large cross-country differences in the size of taxes." Cherry-picking a comparison from a study that says it makes little difference is not indicative of a reliable source, it is a hallmark of spin doctoring. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 16:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Hello,
I wanted to know if the following sources are valid or are the authors just making information up regarding Akshardham Environmental violations. There is a heavy dispute at the talk page for the Akshardham page and I seem to not be understand why the contents cannot be posted without so much dispute. I provided the citations below and I am getting frustrated because I thought these sources are reliable but I am not clear if they are because certain editors are not convinced so I just wanted to get a better understanding.
Sources()
{{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: location (
link){{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)The article BAPS The article talk page: [62]
The Contents being discussed:
Last line in the introduction:
The temple has be subject to heavy criticism regarding its location from environmentalist who accuse that the temple is built illegally on banks of Yamuna River. They have denounced the temple as lacking environmental clearance and first culprit in Yamuna bed violation
Criticism section:
The monument has attracted significant environmental criticism and has contributed to slum displacement concerning its construction on the banks of the Yamuna River. Environment Minister Jairam Ramesh stated, "Akshardham didn't get the clearance. Akshardham didn't apply for the environmental clearance." When pressed further, he stated "It has already happened. What is yet to happen, we can stop that...We can't demolish the Akshardham Complex. We have to protect the remaining river bed." Large protests from environmentalists who were against such a large structure on the riverbed have occurred. Recently, National Green Tribunal fined the temples management for “carrying out expansion without prior environmental clearance and asked a committee on revitalization of Yamuna to examine whether the expanded portion fell on the river's floodplains.” Non-Governmental Organization Yamuna Jiye Abhiyan and other environmental organizations have said the temple and several other structures are encroachments on the floodplains that can increase the risk of dangerous flooding. The construction of the temple resulted in Yamuna Pushta slum being demolished dislocating thousands of people. In 2004, the construction of the temple was challenged in the Supreme Court by the U.P. Employees Federation but the case was ultimately lost
Regards Swamiblue ( talk) 18:36, 30 September 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.
Hello, I would like to request some input on whether the three sources listed below would count as:
I would also ask for those willing to do this to take a few minutes to acquaint themselves with the dispute and the concerns listed on the DRN discussion section and on the talk page for the article in question. The disputed sources are:
Finally,Evangelis Zappas,a Vlach by descent,took the idea and ran with it,paving the way for the modern Olympics.
Some of the biggest national benefactors and personalities of the Greek history belong to Vlach families, like Pavlos Melas, Evangelos and Konstantinos Zappas, Stefanos and Ion.
Kolletes and Spyridon Lampros were Vlachs.So were the great national benefactors George Averoff,Nicolaos Stournares,Tositsas,Sinas,Evangelos and Konstantions Zappas...
Please put your thoughts on the DRN noticeboard section reserved for this discussion.
Cheers, Drcrazy102 ( talk) 00:18, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
Nancy Austin, writing in the now-defunct "contributor network" Yahoo! Voices, is cited as a source for three statements in Orange Socks which is about an unidentified murder victim. After I challenged the use of this source, it was reverted back in as being a reliable source.
I would like to know if Austin is considered a reliable source for the following in that article:
I believe this particular Nancy Austin is not the management consultant author Nancy Austin, who does not write about this sort of thing as can be seen at this extensive list of her publications via one particular source. I can't find any evidence of Nancy Austin being a published author elsewhere.
Thank you. Arthur goes shopping ( talk) 11:47, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
There is a "special repoert" from Mother Jones[ http://www.motherjones.com/special-reports/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial ] titled "The Dirty Dozen of Climate Change Denial" that is being used as a source on multiple pages. [63] It looks to me like an editorial opinion with no particular reason to give it any more weight than the hundreds of similar editorials on both sides of this politically charged issue. Is this a reliable source? -- CypherPunkyBrewster ( talk) 17:41, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
The list is clearly a matter of opinion rather than one of objective fact, and should only be used where properly ascribed as opinion. It should also be noted that linking multiple persons together in any way because of inclusion on a list which is opinion might promote "guilt by association" which we must be careful not to do. (e.g. "George Gnarph and Adolf Hitler are both on Nils Garf's list of 'most hated persons'." would be an example of clear "guilt by association" synthesis, even if both of them are on Garf's list. Collect ( talk) 22:46, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
It's opinion, obviously. But it's noteworthy opinion, having been cited in high-end reliable sources such as The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Thus it can be useful if properly attributed. Whether it's appropriate for any particular article is an editorial question beyond the scope of this board. Short Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 23:37, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
Opinion article Another editor and I discussed the article here [ [64]]. I would view the article as an opinion article based on some facts. It's opinion to call any organization part of "the dirty dozen". It's factual to say they supported research denying climate change, stating "the dirty dozen" is a WP:LABEL issue as well as an opinion. However, even then in most cases this article was just backing what others had said. If CNN says the same thing without the hyperbole, use it instead. To quote a bit of what I said in the above link:
If the MJ article makes claims but offers nothing that can be fact checked is it reliable? Again this makes it more of an opinion article. Furthermore, as I recall when searching for other articles that cited the MJ source, it was something like 3 after what 7 or 8 years. That suggests that other sources didn't find the MJ article to be worthy of weight on this subject. In the end I would say the article is an opinion article and should be treated as such. Furthermore I would suggest it's weight is very low and thus should be removed if other more reliable sources are saying the same thing (or better sources can be found). Specific note to the comment Short Brigade Harvester Boris made, yes it was cited in The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. However, it was cited as an example of an article which made a claim. That is, the Oxford text simply says the MJ article exists and covers a subject. It does not say the content of the MJ article is correct, accurate etc. The Oxford authors were not relying on the MJ article as a factual reference. Springee ( talk) 15:36, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
An administrator of our project, who is opposed to the use of Mother Jones (magazine) in our project, is systematically adding the red-link author name Josh Harkinson in-text wherever this source is used, with the edit summary, "proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV." Is this a proper application of WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV? Does WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV require the author name in text? The source is a feature article, not a guest editorial. The source was subject to the editorial oversight of Mother Jones (magazine). The author name is available to curious readers in the ref. The author name in-text is unnecessary and distracting to our readers WP:RF. In-text attribution to Mother Jones (magazine) is necessary and sufficient. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 17:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
I'm seeing this website pop up increasingly as a source for articles dealing with the very touchy subjects of the conflicts in Yemen and Syria. To my eye, the website has a very obvious bias against the U.S. and Gulf states and toward the Syrian and Iranian governments (and their allies in Russia and Yemen). To wit, in this recently cited story, the use of terms like "Saudi-US aggression units" (obviously not WP:NPOV), "Yemeni national military" (the country is in a civil war between two factions claiming to be the Yemeni government, with different military units backing each), "fugitive President Abed Rabbu Mansour Hadi" (implies he is a fugitive from justice), and "Saudi-led aggression" (again, not NPOV; the Saudis claim they are responding to Hadi's request for assistance). There's also this recent story that refers to "Islamist rebel factions from the Free Syrian Army", a secular group led by defected military officers, and this story that uses phrases like "the Zionist entity" and "Zionist forces" in apparent reference to Israel. There are plenty more examples. This website does not seem like it meets Wikipedia's standards as a reliable source; for what it's worth, it also doesn't have a Wikipedia article about it, and it provides exceedingly little information on its website about who is backing it and where it is based (beyond "the Arab world"). I'm inclined to consider it propaganda in nature. Thoughts? - Kudzu1 ( talk) 17:14, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
In the article Human rights in Venezuela I gave [1] as reference for the text of an open letter by experts to the Board of Directors of Human Rights Watch. Another editor maintains the source is not reliable and, therefore, I can't use it. I have no information on any political slant of the source, but I think this is immaterial since the text is genuine. I would like to have more opinions. Againstdisinformation ( talk) 17:39, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
References
This topic is about http://www.mdpi.com/2076-328X/5/3/388/htm as either WP:MEDRS-compliant source or vanity press, when entered as a source at Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction. The source is PubMed but not MedLine indexed.
Evidence for being predatory:
with low publishing fees paid by authors or their institutions.
Jeffrey Beall (18 February 2014), Chinese Publisher MDPI Added to List of Questionable Publishers, Scholarly Open Access: Critical analysis of scholarly open-access publishing. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 22:38, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
"Fees paid by authors" is the very definition of vanity press. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 09:07, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
Care should be taken with journals that exist mainly to promote a particular point of view. A claim of peer review is not an indication that the journal is respected, or that any meaningful peer review occurs. Journals that are not peer reviewed by the wider academic community should not be considered reliable, except to show the views of the groups represented by those journals
Tgeorgescu is gaming the system by blocking a PubMed indexed, peer-reviewed review of the literature related to the neuroscience of porn addiction. Tgeorgescu has blocked inclusion of this review based on 18 month old blog post has since been refuted by Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association. Furthermore, MDPI responded to Jeffrey Beall's allegations prior to the OASPA ruling. Since Beall had no response to MDPI, nor OASPA it must be assumed that there exists no official support for the blog post. Finally and most telling, Tgeorgescu has cited nothing specific to the Journal Behavioral Sciences, nor has Tgeorgescu refuted a single word of the review.
A simple fact - Open access journals, which accept pay, are in fact accepted as sources on Wikipedia, including MDPI. Until you can demonstrate that MDPI studies have been blocked from Wikipedia, you are gaming the system (gate-keeping).
Further evidence that Tgeorgescu is gate-keeping both Effects of pornography and Pornography addiction is that he permits Ley, et al, which is not PubMed indexed, and published by a suspect Journal, Current Sexual Health Reports. The Journal Behan publishing in 2004, went on hiatus in 2008, only to be resurrected in 2014, just in time to feature Ley et al. It's well established that the Ley et al. editor, Charles Moser, has been a long-time vocal critic of porn and sex addiction, while David Ley is the author of the Myth of Sex Addiction. Ley et al has been exposed as nothing more than a biased an unsupported piece of propaganda
It must be stated that blogger Jeffrey Beall's opinion contains no more weight than any other Internet blogger. He has no official status in any organization that governs academic publishing. Beall has been roundly criticized for being judge. jury, and executioner, while being accountable to no one. A few of the Many scholar have critiqued Beall:
1) Parting Company with Jeffrey Beall
QUOTED "Since I first became aware of Beall’s List, however, I have been following some of Beall’s work with growing unease. Here and there some (to me) distasteful political ideology peeked through (with my pragmatic mindset, any kind of ideology makes me queasy), but you don’t have to agree with somebody all the time to agree with them some of the time. But now, in a recent screed, he has crossed the line."
2) Should We Retire the Term “Predatory Publishing”?
QUOTED "Beall’s List has been controversial since its establishment for a variety of reasons, some of them obvious (no publisher, whether legitimate or not, appreciates being publicly branded a “predator”), and some of them less so. One of the more subtle reasons for the controversy around Beall’s List lies in the fact that it focuses entirely on OA publishing. Predictably, this has aroused the ire of many in the OA community, who have accused Beall of targeting these publishers out of an animus towards OA itself—a charge to which Beall provided a fair amount of ammunition when he wrote an impassioned attack on the OA movement in the journal tripleC."
QUOTED: Beall’s list has become a go-to tool and has even been featured in The New York Times,5 but it is not the final word on predatory publishing, partially because Beall himself has a complicated, and not entirely supportive, attitude toward OA in general. Another concerning aspect of Beall’s work is his evaluation of OA publishers from less economically developed countries. Crawford, Karen Coyle, and Jill Emery have all noted Beall’s bias against these publishers.10,11,12
4) Ethics and Access 1: The Sad Case of Jeffrey Beall.
QUOTED: I didn’t read all of Beall’s blog posts. I honestly don’t know whether the misleading items noted above are typical or special cases. As with most library folk, I was appalled when a publisher attempted to sue Beall for libel—but being sued for unfortunate reasons doesn’t automatically make the defendant a saint. As with a number of other people who’ve been involved with and writing about OA for years, I was growing increasingly nervous about Beall’s growing stridency about “predatory” OA publishers— and amazement that there never seem to be sketchy or predatory subscription publishers, even among those charging high page charges and other article fees.
5) A Response to Jeffrey Beall’s Critique of Open Access
QUOTED: Beall’s critiques of open access are not always as factual as they could be, so as an open access advocate I am concerned when his polemics are presented to an academic audience that may not know all the facts.
In summary, Tgeorgescu is basing his entire argument on a single blogger who has clear bias and who has been roundly criticized. The accusations by Beall against MDPI have been refuted or addressed by both MDPI and the OASPA. Most importantly, there exists no official Wikimedia statement banning MDPI studies. User Tgeorgescu proves his bias by accepting a review (Ley et al.) from a minor journal, which took a 6- yaer hiatus, has only publsihed for a few yaers is not PubMed indexed - yet he blocks this PubMed indexed review. The evidence is clear that Tgeorgescu is acting as the gate-keeper for porn-related Wiki pages. Gaborlewis ( talk) 16:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I've been having a discussion in the Jayce & the Wheeled Warriors article regarding the reliability of a source that posted scans of a comic strip that appeared in a French tv guide during 1987.
For example [71].The exact statement is
An uncredited, unfinished comic based on the series was published in the French comic magazine Pif Gadget #922. The 13-page adventure ended on a cliffhanger as the next issue did not include the follow-up story and the conclusion to that story was never published in Pif Gadget. It included characters created specifically for the comic, such as a white-haired young sorceress called Algora who was an ally of Saw Boss. The story, entitled "Le Sortilège d'Algora" ("Algora's Spell") was later re-printed and completed in Poche Junior, a free supplement for younger readers to the French television listing magazine Télé Poche, in several installments: Poche Junior #1 (May 1987),[14] Poche Junior #2 (May 1987),[15] Poche Junior #17 (August 1987),[16] Poche Junior n° 23 (October 1987),[17] and Poche Junior n° 25 (October 1987).[18]
The links provided are of a blog that has the scans available online. The discussion is regarding the fact that this is a blog and as such unreliable. However, the scans posted are of official publications, can probably be found and bought from collectors if so desired, and as such should be considered reliable regardless of being posted on a blog. A point was made that the scans could have been altered and I would agree if it concerned just an image of the guide. However, the entire thing was scanned and posted along with publication dates. So I figure this should be considered a reliable source. Maybe not based on location, but certainly on content provided. If it isn't, how would content such as this ever be verified? JalGorda ( talk) 15:26, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
1. Source.
Mark Lane (author), specifically this magazine article:
Lane, Mark (November 1977).
"The Mysterious Death of a Key JFK Witness" (PDF). Gallery: 41–43, 106–107, 110, 112, 114. {{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help) (Note that some images in pdf are NSFW.)
2. Article.
George de Mohrenschildt
3. Content. The source is used multiple times in the article. The following are two examples:
Mark Lane has plenty of supporters, but he has also frequently been described as a conspiracy theorist, and his critics state that the assertions in his writings are based on hearsay, innuendo, and rumor; cherry-picking of facts; or just plain fabrication (e.g. [72]). His "investigative report" in Gallery does appear to rely heavily on hearsay from another conspiracy theorist, Willem Oltmans, to state that George de Mohrenschildt was going to spill the bean on the assassination of John F. Kennedy. Thoughts? - Location ( talk) 19:07, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
Are articles on Thought Catalog considered reliable/notable for wikipedia? While many notable people publish on Thought Catalog, I am referring to content written by people who are otherwise un-notable. The website's policy for publishing articles is found here. In particular, I am wondering if the website would be considered acceptable for the relevant sentence currently in the lead at this article: Mirror Mirror (M2M song). Thanks in advance. Freikorp ( talk) 01:07, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
"Mining the tech world for lively and meaningful tales and analysis. Pitch guidelines here: https://medium.com/@lotto/would-you-like-to-pitch-medium-s-in-house-publications-matter-and-backchannel-27cb772e6705"
Over at Norman Borlaug, the idea that there was a food shortage in India in the mid-1960s has been challenged by SageRad here claiming the source is "hagiographic". There's a little tweaking that can be done on the text, but the idea that's mainly being challenged is that there was a food shortage at all. The source is from the journal Science from its science news section. It's an article on Borlaug receiving the Nobel peace prize and a bit of his general biography. The text is:
One need only recall the close brush with famine on the Indian-Pakistan subcontinent in 1966 and 1967, a famine that was averted only by shipping one-fifth of the U.S. wheat crop to India, and the projection of massive famine in Asia in the 1970's, to realize that the new seeds are a godsend. [73]
The seeds are in reference to the varieties that resulted in Borlaug's Nobel prize and is part of the second paragraph here. There isn't a whole lot of editor traffic on the article in the time it's been on my watchlist, so could some folks here comment on the reliability of this source in terms of saying there was a food shortage, crop failure, etc.? Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Let's be accurate. I challenged the content: 'During the mid-1960s, the Indian subcontinent was at war and experiencing widespread famine[citation needed] and starvation...
Of course i know there were food shortages in Bihar. I know people died. I know there was a famine that Indian state. It is described on Wikipedia here. The section does begin with "The Bihar famine of 1966–7 was a minor famine with relatively very few deaths from starvation as compared to the famines of the British era."
I was also not challenging the journal Science as a source, in general. I was challenging the interpretation of the source article into the content that was in the Wikipedia article.
You have misrepresented the whole issue on many levels. I hope that was not deliberate, but i'd like to work with you, and we need to be accurate in order to do so. SageRad ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Undent, science is generally an RS, though not neccessarily every opinion piece published in it: but this does nothing for your dispute. Sometimes RSs will be mistaken, and it isn't at all clear that the cite actually supports the statement. Judging from the wiki page on indian famines, the statement "During the mid-1960s, the Indian subcontinent was at war and experiencing widespread famine[citation needed] and starvation" appears to be factually incorrect. The definition of widespread is debatable, but...oh hell I'mma rephrase it myself. This really seems like a content dispute rather than a RS issue though.
78.144.221.190 (
talk) 19:13, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
According to an independent investigation, this is a fake news site that pumps itself with fake twitter and Google+ followers: http://inc42.com/longform/nextbigwhat-fake-social-media-ethical/. Less reliable sources (e.g. quora.com) say that it's a paid advertorial site a la YourStory. It appears that a lot of Indian startups use it for Wikipedia articles (see external links search), many of whom are created with severe conflicts of interest or undisclosed paid editing; details are at WP:COIN#YourStory.com ( permalink). - Brianhe ( talk) 19:59, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
See the sources added in this edit reliable? The editor has been edit-warring to keep them in the article, and has not joined the discussion at the talk page. 73.168.15.161 ( talk) 19:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
I imagine this has been considered long since, but I can't find it anywhere: how do we stand on the verifiability of material sourced from programme booklets? Very often – e.g. at the Royal Opera House, National Theatre or Barbican Centre – they contain essays and articles by leading experts in the relevant field, and they obviously meet Wikipedia's definition of "made available to the public in some form". But on the whole they are sold or given out on the day of the performance and are not obtainable afterwards. The archivists of the major companies will keep copies – and in my experience have been very helpful in providing details from them – and some museums and academic institutions maintain theatre collections, but is this enough to satisfy the verifiability criterion? Grateful for guidance on this. – Tim riley talk 07:11, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Yourstory.com is clearly not a RS: they exist as a promo platform as described by themselves at "yourstory.com/testimonials/" and "yourstory.com/frequently-asked-questions/". Unfortunately this has been used as a source in many India-related articles [75]. Brianhe ( talk) 17:31, 7 October 2015 (UTC)