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 195 | ← | Archive 199 | Archive 200 | Archive 201 | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | → | Archive 205 |
There have been many threads about IMDB on this page. I did an archive search and found some varying opinions. While I did not look through every page that mentions Imdb, I came to the conclusion that either there's no clear consensus except that it's often unreliable. But perhaps there is consensus and I'm just not seeing it.
The primary question is for what purposes do we consider Imdb a reliable source?
The specific example here is here. I removed Imdb as a reference from Mickey Rooney and Rms125a@hotmail.com reverted with edit summary "IMDB is QUITE unreliable re personal details/biodata, etc; but IMDb is QUITE reliable regarding credits, roles, etc".
I have not heard this blanket "Imdb is reliable for credits, roles, etc." argument before, and I can accept that perhaps my understanding of Imdb is incorrect but would like to make sure.
Based on some of the archived discussions, the secondary question is: what conditions, if any, must be in place for Imdb to be considered a reliable source for such purposes? For example, I saw mention of some sort of WGA certification or other indication that might exist on an Imdb page which makes it reliable? (I looked through a few profiles and haven't seen any such indicator -- perhaps it requires Imdb Pro?).
To add a little more context, there's some fishy business going on with some articles related to Warren Chaney. Many of the articles about his films and associates rely almost exclusively on user-generated content, publications for which there is no trace, and primary/self-published sources. Given the poor sourcing, I looked for pages linking to America: A Call to Greatness (the most egregiously promoted, by now-blocked sock puppets -- and indeed it was one of the socks who added the link to the Rooney article), and removed mention of the film where it only referenced Imdb and/or Americamovie.com (which was in every case). I'm going to ping a few other people not because I have any idea of where they stand regarding Imdb, but because the answer to this question would also affect their edits related to Chaney: @ Tokyogirl79, NinjaRobotPirate, and Dbrodbeck: — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
"IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged".
It is not like Wikipedia where anyone can add anything. IMDB requires completion of a "New Title Submission Form." Normally films in production are not accepted unless proof is submitted. While registered users submit changes they are checked by IMDB staff before inclusion. There is a process for requesting corrections. [3]
Errors will occur in the most reliable sources. The New York Times has reported errors in their reporting every day this week. Today alone they reported 20 errors. Yet we consider them reliable because they have standards for fact checking and correcting errors. Sometimes editors will find errors in reliable sources before they are corrected and we can challenge them. It does not mean we reject the source, otherwise we would have no sources for articles.
TFD ( talk) 00:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
See [4] for the discussion.
"you made an accusation so you wish to hide the proof your accusation was utterly wrong? sheesh!"... WP:POINT much?
"The newspaper used to do fact-checking"(which, of course, implies that they no longer engage in the activity of fact-checking)? Are you trying to say that because they don't have a proofreading department or someone with the title of "fact-checker", they don't "do fact-checking"? And where is there "proof" that they "rely on press releases rather than using actual reporters", which, of course, would mean they don't use actual reporters (or don't "rely" on them, I guess?) Regardless, I'll again reiterate this is a complete tangent that adds nothing to the discussion, and should still be hatted (I'll leave that to someone else, though). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, RS/IMDB is not a guideline, and it links to an essay explaining how to use IMDB ( Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). RS/IMDB says data can be used if it "is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Clearly we should not use reader postings in discussion threads, storyline, biography etc. But then we should not be using tertiary sources for that type of information anyway.
As a general rule, this board should be used to enquire about specific text rather than sources in general, since most sources are reliable for some things but not for others. So I will provide an example, the upcoming Sisters (2015 film). The infobox provides basic details on directors, producers, writers, stars, release dates, budgets, etc. No other source provides all that information. I imagine all this detail was taken from IMDB, yet it is not cited. There are cites for only three facts: music, running time and budget. Yet the music writer could have changed since it was reported, the running time in the UK may not be the same as the rest of world and there is no reason why the budget info should be taken from Box Office Mojo, which is owned by IMDB, rather than IMDB.
So what should we do? Use IMDB as a source and not cite them? Or delete most of the information in the infobox?
TFD ( talk) 20:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The question arises from a friendly discussion on the Donald Trump page. I am not including diffs as there really is no dispute at the moment and the failed verification templates I put on two references in the political campaign section are likely to be amicably resolved. However the same sort of issue may be elsewhere on the page; I found it the first place I checked for it.
Assuming that there does in fact exist a first-hand link to an audio clip of Donald Trump "clarifying" something he said several days earlier, would this be RS for saying that subsequenty he said that of course he had said no such thing?
In other words, Trump was initially reported to have said that all Muslim travel to the United States must be shut down. In the referenced article is a link to a film clip with an embedded phone-in from Donald Trump saying well of course US citizens are different. Yes I did listen to it that far, a voice does say that. It also talks about 9-11 and no-go zones in Paris and....you don't want to know, really you don't. In other words, the publisher is RS, it's a respectable talk show, I think, broadcast news, it's RS that he *said* it but otherwise...speechless. Surely this statement can be found somewhere in print? This is the Republican frontrunner, discussing a matter of national security and human rights. You'd like to think it would get covered.
Yet two days earlier another publication reported a named staffer saying "Mr Trump says everyone". That sounds pretty definite. I don't know that "clarify" is the right word here. My personal opinion is that we should document each pronouncement with RS, as opposed to buying into the idea each time that there was simply some misunderstanding. Do people agree? Also, what is the best documentation (video? audio? analysis?) of what Donald Trump did or did not say or might or might not favor as a candidate? Elinruby ( talk) 23:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Is a reliable source?
2A02:582:C74:6C00:A436:91E7:2A35:6D9A (
talk) 19:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I′m trying to ask about a website but I got an error all three times I tried to post the link. Anyway, I′m talking about ref no. 3 at Joey DeMaio. 2A02:582:C74:6C00:A436:91E7:2A35:6D9A ( talk) 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the first time The Daily Mail has straight-out fabricated a news story. Even if they had guessed right on the verdict, the story was pre-written and was in no way an actual report of what happened. When are we finally going to say that we have had enough of this and declare The Daily Mail to be an inherently unreliable source? When are we going to decide once and for all that if something is in The Daily Mail the editor must find another source, and that if it is only in The Daily Mail we have no idea whether it actually happened as reported? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry - no newspaper is a good source for celebrity gossip at all ("instant analysis" included)-- but that does not mean the DM is to be ruled out as a reliable source otherwise. This has been discussed it seems dozens of times - and the consensus here has never been to blacklist the newspaper. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
More fabrication by The Daily Mail:
And yes, I did puposely include several non-reliable (but better than The Daily Mail!) sources in the above list. I wanted to see if any of the DM supporters could point that out without imploding from the irony. :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
by Sydney Smith, writing for iMediaEthics
"UK print regulatory body the Press Complaints Commission “censured” the Daily Mail for its October 3 fake story reporting the wrong verdict in American student Amanda Knox’s trial, the Guardian’s Roy Greenslade reported. As we wrote at the time, soon after an Italian court found Knox not guilty in the murder of her roommate, the Mail published a story with the wrong verdict saying she had been found guilty. Shortly after publication, the Mail pulled the story from its website. The Mail published a story with the correct verdict (not guilty) and apologized for the error.
According to Greenslade, in response to the incident, the Mail started an internal review into the incident and “disciplined the person responsible for the error.” We wrote Oct. 5 about the announcement of the Mail’s internal review. The Mail claimed that the article was up only for 30 seconds, however, Seattle Weekly said the article was up for about half an hour.
Possibly most egregious, the Daily Mail’s article included quotes from prosecutors on the (fake) guilty ruling and reported on Knox’s reaction to the (fake) guilty ruling. The PCC’s ruling (see here) said that complainants questioned those quotes from prosecutors about the verdict of guilty, and a description of what happened after the guilty verdict. According to the PCC, the complaints were made by “members of the public.”
The PCC’s ruling noted that the Daily Mail claimed the quotations “had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial.” However, even if that is true, iMediaEthics notes that there is no possible way for the Mail to explain away its claim that Knox “looked stunned” in response to the phony guilty verdict. That part of the story was clearly fabricated and a guess on behalf of the Daily Mail as to how Knox would react."
Source: http://www.imediaethics.org/pcc-censures-uk-daily-mail-for-fabricated-amanda-knox-story/ (emphasis added)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed far too many times - and the answer remains the same - the Daily Mail and all newspapers have problems with celebrity news, but the statistics show that for other news the Daily Mail is just about the same as all newspapers - the desire to blacklist this source is simply contrary to the intent of WP:RS. And like all sources, any given claim may be given weight depending on the nature of the claim, but not on a bias that one does not like the source - I hold the same for "Russia Today", the "New York Daily News", "Huffington Post" etc. and basically all printed or media sources. And one major problem is that virtually none of them do any fact-checking at all, and most rely heavily on press releases. Perhaps we should say "no newspapers are actually reliable sources if they have no fact-checkers working at the newspaper" but that would mean we dump the New York Times etc. as well. Recall that major newspapers reported on an "amphibious" baseball player ... Collect ( talk) 03:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment We are not just talking about a newspaper getting some facts wrong, or even about a rogue reporter, we are talking about a newspaper that knowingly published a wholly frabricated story. What makes a source reliable is its editorial oversight, and there is clearly something very wrong with the editorial oversight at the Daily Mail. Yes, they carry out rock solid journalism in some cases but how can we have confidence in their editorial oversight to weed out errors and poor journalism when they knowingly publish fabricated stories? Personal blogs may publish accurate stories but we don't permit them on the basis that they are usually correct; we prohibit them because there is no reliable editorial oversight and this is the case for the Daily Mail now. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.
Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 00:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
http://amgtve.formusiciansonly.com/
Is this a reliable source that could be used to create content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk Leonard ( talk • contribs)
OK, so can I add content sourced to the book and also start new articles based on pedals described in the book?
Are two sources enough for a topic, or should it be three or more?
Cracked.com has a humor article titled "6 Reasons You've Probably Read Russian Propaganda Today". [17] [18] Key quote: "Because of the way Facebook works, if you find yourself clicking on a lot of articles from a website -- say Russia Today or Sputnik -- because it had one of those headlines you just had to check out, new articles from that same site will show up more frequently in your news feed. And they won't all look instantly crazy." The same is true of Google, and any number of other sites that customize content according to what (they think) interests you. Clearly this works the other way as well: if someone only looks at legitimate news sites they will see more links to legitimate news sites, which would lead to underestimating the amount of crazy out there. The "fun" begins when members of those two groups each try to edit the same Wikipedia page according to the sources Facebook or Google spoonfeeds them, often followed by a trip here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The source in the subject, published by J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, is used heavily in Joachim Peiper, currently linked from the main page "On this day" section. There has been some doubt voiced at Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte about the use of this source (which, honestly, I share). Some more input would be appreciated. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute over allowable content on "divine revelations" concerning the biblical messenger Gabriel. Wikiisawesome is using specious boilerplate arguments to violate my First Amendment freedom of religion beliefs, for not being considered reliable, by him, under personal bias. Under the scapegoat that the II Revelation isn't reliable source, according to policy. Citing various policies which may apply to "reliable sources" when there is an authentic debatable factual dispute over quality of sources. He is not able to point me to one "provable source of information on Gabriel." Yet, he says that this is the reason why my post is disqualified. He then attempts to use "self-publishing" source as the chancellor's foot, even though in the book itself, the divine revelation was that it could not be published for commercial use. And with no offer to potential offer to publishers (to gauge its religious/literary value), this would be extremely arbitrary to say that it is not a quality work (having in the very least artistic, educational, and literary value, on the subject matter).
I feel the bottomline is that there is no way to truly apply reliable source policies on coherent works of literature that describe spiritual beings. Because the book is published on Amazon.com and is coherent, and has literary value on the subject matter; it should be included in public discourse to determine its relation within the Wiki-content by the individual reader. This is more on point with the content neutral perspective of Wikipedia, to offer perspectives from all angles, that is not showing bias towards a particular religious belief.
If the II Revelation were not a high quality biblical work, and had no literary or educational value, then I would find that sufficient to say that it lacks relevance to the serious educational content of the Wikipedia page. But, since it is a high quality, well written work, that is written in a style similar to the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, quoted often therein; it certainly is of educational value on the subject matter, and of strong relevance. Even though it is a noncanonical work, and is not ancient. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 16:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The Revelation given to John of Patmos starts in a similar manner?
Rev 1:1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify `it', having sent through his messenger to his servant John, Rev 1:2 who did testify the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things also as he did see.
Does it violate the Reliable Source rule?
There is no per se rule against self-published sources, as you are trying to interpret it. And, when the source of information is not provable, as there is no way to prove the revelation given to John was real; then there is no way to say that there is a reliable source or not. The revelation given to John is more commonly accepted and known, because of its age; not because it presents provable testimony. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 17:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The concept behind the II Revelation, is that it is the fulfilment of I Revelation 10:11 Rev 10:11 and he saith to me, `It behoveth thee again to prophesy about peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings -- many.' That John of Patmos must prophesy again in the future, and write a second revelation. And, the fulfilment of the gospel of John words, that John would somehow remain until the second coming.
John 21:21 Peter having seen this one, saith to Jesus, `Lord, and what of this one?' John 21:22 Jesus saith to him, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee? be thou following me.' This word, therefore, went forth to the brethren that that disciple doth not die, John 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee?'
Thus, the II Revelation, has credence for allegedly fulfilling these prophecies, and whether it did or not, is open to endless debate; as is the rest of the bible. But, the arguable basis alone, is sufficient to make it of educational value on the subject matter. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Then where exactly does the RS for these writings come from? If they are not based on writings from John? Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 18:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict)First of all you have no First Amendment rights here as we aren't the US government or even a state or local government. I also agree that this isn't a reliable source. Additionally, I note that an edit of yours says "that is virtually unknown to the general public." Wikipedia is not a venue for new ideas, which this appears to be. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
All of your arguments are complete nonsense. They are fundamentally illogical. You are saying that a self-published author who recently wrote a noncanonical biblical book, in which he describes his vision of Gabriel; cannot be relevant or posted onto an article on Gabriel. Because there is no way to verify the author had this vision, or that it actually was Gabriel, and his book was not published by a commercial corporation putting their reputation behind the allegation that it was Gabriel, and that there is no reliable source to prove that it was Gabriel; and also that there is a blanket restriction on the inclusion of citation to newly published material on Wikipedia. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 20:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to another user, II Revelation would count as a primary source. And, people obviously care about the subject matter, because it discusses Gabriel. People may not be aware of the primary source because it was just published last month. Citing facts from such a primary source without basing the entire article on it, is permissible according to the policy. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
As stated on Gabriel edit page: I don't see how the link is relevant, when I am not writing an entire article about II Revelation; I merely quoted a few verses for an article on Gabriel, of relevance. Second of all, I am not promoting a new word, idea, or invention. Notoriety is only relevant, when it involves writing an entirely new article on a topic; that it must be considered of value by someone (representative of the public at large). Information on Gabriel, historic, and how it is evolving in recent literature and media, is all relevant to the topic of the Gabriel article, which has well-established notoriety. I think your getting too deep into the commercial value of the book and saturation into media, rather than its relevance, as a modern noncanonical primary source work briefly cited on point of the topic. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 03:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Every other breath there is some new angle, to say that II Revelation doesn't meet the standards for inclusion. My time is more precious than to waste it arguing with close-minded people. You can interpret the policies any way you like, apparently if you all gang up saying that new users are wrong; it seems fine. But, the record is against you; by your own words, how you have changed your specious reasoning at least thirty different times; it stinks of fraud. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 11:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe any of your myriads of mercurial excuses are valid. But, like I said, it is not worth my time to argue. Upon retrospection, it is probably better that I keep knowledge of the book underground; because that is what ruined the original Christian movement, with too many fake Christians. Besides, it makes the rest of the article sources look patently fraudulent/not very compelling/fragmented/etc. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I just would like to check whether the sources provided in Yasser Hareb article are reliable or not? could you please advise in this regard?. The article is proposed for deletion for unreliable sources reason, but I don't know what is wrong with the sources that I've provided. He has his own page for his weekly articles on the official websites of official newspapers from the UAE and Middle East region. In addition to that, I've provided some sources about his tv show on the official website of official channels in the UAE as well as some sources about his books. Badis1988 ( talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello [[User:Comatmebro|Comatmebro] what about the other sources used in the article? are they reliable or not? you just advised me about one source, thanks. Badis1988 ( talk) 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Checking to see if I am correct that this source is a commercial, for-profit site and hence not an RS for articles about horse bits. It was proposed as a source at bit mouthpiece and the same editor is currently working on a draft at Draft:Dr. Bristol (Horse Bit). The topic meets notability for horse bits, and it was kind of my idea that the writer try to create a new article, but now I'm getting concerned that there is a COI going on. So anyway, before I go bite a newbie, thought I'd get some feedback. There are plenty of other sources out there about horse bits. Montanabw (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has been adding Indonesian sources to some articles with questionable notability. One of them is this source being used at Cemre Melis Çınar. My language skills don't extend this far but it appears to be an anonymous blog and so would not be a reliable source. Am I correct in assuming this? The editor in question has used similar sources at Isabella Damla Güvenilir, Selin Sezgin and Volkan Çolpan. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Bruce Eder writes many articles I come across. He has written music and movie criticism for not only AllMusic, but also the Criterion Collection, the most prestigious DVD label, as well as a host of other publications. [1] He also wrote the liner notes for the Rolling Stones' Singles Collection (deluxe box set). He seems to be a writer of impeccable professional credentials and that his work, regardless of whatever venue it appears in, should be considered reliable. would I be correct? Garagepunk66 ( talk) 03:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
References
This Indian National Award winning book by G. Dhananjayan, besides many factually incorrect claims, contains considerable plagiarism from our articles. I have not read the whole book, but some examples include the chapters about Karnan, Pavalakkodi and Vallinam. Those who have read the book to any extent, like Vensatry and Ssven2 (when your internet improves) are encouraged to participate in this discussion. Kailash29792 ( talk) 16:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil#Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Issues of reliability of sources have been raised. Thanks. Hugh ( talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to request some feedback on whether the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) is a reliable source, because I am considering helping them contribute to business/economics topics with a self-citation COI. MGI publishes data-based, peer-reviewed, papers on business/economics topics. I would compare them to reports published by industry analysts.
For example, lets say I were to add this MGI report to the Gender pay gap page with something like "According to a study by The McKinsey Global Institute, global GDP would be increased by $28 trillion if the gender gap was closed." Articles in The Wall Street Journal and TIME Magazine that covered the report could also be cited. However, lets say I also wanted to add freely licensed diagrams from page VII and 28 showing gender gap breakdowns by region and by industry respectively. Those aren't covered by press sources and could only be added by relying on MGI alone as an RS.
The type of stuff I would like to add to Wikipedia is their data on market-sizes, demographics, projections, etc.
David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Re-posted from
User_talk:EdJohnston#Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change at the request of User:NewsAndEventsGuy
Biscuittin (
talk) 16:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC) strikeout added by me since this is part is untrue.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There is another edit war in progess at Scientific opinion on climate change. The point at issue is whether two scientific papers are, or are not, reliable sources. Could you please advise how I can get an independent opinion on this. Biscuittin ( talk) 09:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The content I added to Iran-Iraq war was removed by a user. I'd like to know if the article is not reliable. I thought the article was well sourced bedsides being written by a scholar, so it seemed reliable to me. Mhhossein ( talk) 07:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I came across this when editing Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. I cited video game/film/television website ScrewAttack, specifically this link: [23]. The content in the article reads: " ScrewAttack.com placed the series among the top 20 greatest Cartoon Network shows of all time, praising its "fleshed out" and "memorable" characters, as well as its comedy style, stating that it "not only appealed to younger audiences, but to all age groups"." Cheers, K atástas i (κατάσταση) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to make a comment, it looks as though this article was user-submitted so obviously this shouldn't be considered reliable. This shouldn't be used to figure out Screwattack's reliability. Besides, the user hasn't posted there since 2013. GamerPro64 04:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about a Russian insult to President Obama. There's one reliable source, the Times of London, that mentions it in passing. There are a couple of other sources that sorta talk about the insult, but not about Obama. Most of the sources are blogs, joking websites, or at about the intellectual level of "Entertainment Tonight". Or just plain propaganda. You probably need to know a bit of Russian to judge what's happening here, but any help appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Russian sites I dont care, but I don't see why this newspice about a French moron governor visiting Russia from Romanian website Reporter virtual is unreliable. This news was all over Europe. Starting from France itself- üser:Altenmann >t 04:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S.@ Smallbones: I believe the issue is moot now; I will not contest the deletion of text, because I added a couple of ironclad sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject in Russian propaganda war. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've removed a couple more unnotable facts. This part was even funny: [24] ("Professor Sergei Zhuk gives a yet another another plausible explanation. [end of paragraph]" citing a source that is actually a blog post by Sergei Zhuk. Who is the person, what's his explanation, and did he refer to himself in the third person or something?) -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Help! The author continues reverting. My only explanation is that he can't read Russian and doesn't understand what he uses as sources and he wants to save his article at all costs. (
It was nearly deleted at AfD just a few days ago.)
Look at this, this is what he restored:
I personally think the article should have been deleted at AfD. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 00:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And here (
here)
*(cur | prev) 11:38, December 20, 2015 Moscow Connection (talk | contribs) . . (4,086 bytes) (-748) . . (The sources don't say it.) (undo | thank) **Yes they say. Anway, I deleted the second one, since it is just an advert. - üser:Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>'''t''']] 23:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)}}
Where exacly do the sources say, "It is usually used as a sticker for cars". Where? (It's just an example why this whole deal is just too frustrating.) -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 05:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian frequently prints articles by feminist campaigners which contain claims which are later proven to be untrue, and which are not corrected or retracted. One of the more notable examples is the false claim against Tim Hunt, which revolves around whether Hunt was speaking in jest or sincerely, and whether the audience reaction indicated that Hunt's statement was being taken as jest. The false claim by Connie St Louis is still on the Guardian's website right now: "They were deeply offended and didn’t get Hunt’s “jokes”. Nobody was laughing."
For further information, Wikipedia's own article is an excellent resource ( /info/en/?search=Tim_Hunt). I urge readers to look at the article's talk page and take note of the editors who grasp at every straw possible to retain the defamatory claims against Hunt in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, despite excellent secondary sources confirming that an audio recording proved the audience laughed at Hunt's jokes. "The recording shows Sir Tim's concluding remarks were followed by laughter and appreciative applause." The article even includes the audio recording, which captures the laughter with crystal clarity.
The Guardian is not unaware that their defamation of Mr. Hunt is problematic; see this article referring to it: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/13/responding-to-criticism-of-our-coverage-of-the-tim-hunt-affair
Regardless, Connie St Louis' defamatory lie is still on the Guardian's website at the time of writing. It's headline is the blunt order "Stop defending Tim Hunt" http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/23/stop-defending-tim-hunt-brian-cox-richard-dawkins?CMP=share_btn_fb
One defamatory article is bad enough, but it is rather a pattern with this newspaper, which has printed unfounded rape allegations by Emma Sulkowicz and Dylan Farrow as fact, despite the fact that both of the accused men have been exonerated by the justice system.
I am certain that on other matters, the Guardian has some wish to maintain a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, but in matters which pertain to smear campaigns by feminists, the Guardian's reliability is surely no better than Rush Limbaugh's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.228.124 ( talk • contribs)
In short: Opinions may be used properly sourced and cited as opinions. Using opinion columns as "statements of fact" is improper on Wikipedia, and especially with regard to living persons. Collect ( talk) 21:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are always opinion pieces, I have no idea what the controversy is here. If you can't tell the difference between a sourced article and Opinion blather, you should probably do more background work before editing Wikipedia. Lipsquid ( talk) 22:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
On the doxing article defunct gaming site Reaxxion is being used as a source, for the claim that the use of doxing is used by people associated with feminism ( diff.) I don't believe Reaxxion meets WP:IRS. It was founded in Nov 2014 and does not have a reputation of fact checking. The article being cited also makes some pretty serious claims about a living person. Is Reaxxion a reliable source? — Strongjam ( talk) 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I usually come across this site whenever I look for sources on sci-fi or fantasy related items. From what I can see they do have staff and they were mentioned in this book by Libraries Unlimited and this one by Routledge, both academic publishers. A further search brought up other academic coverage, where they'd been used as a RS or mentioned as a large, influential site. ( [26], [27], [28], [29])
My thought is that they should be considered usable. I figured that it'd be good to ask and get a bit of a consensus, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
List_of_game_theorists has no sources and may violate original research guidelines and may not meet notability requirements. WikIan -( talk) 23:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently working on expanding the page for
Abbās al-Aqqād, an Egyptian poet, journalist and literary critic from the first half of the 20th century. There is an acceptable number of sources out there, but I just found two more about which I am unsure. One is from a website called
Arab World Books and the other is from a site called
Arab Philosophers. The former boasts a diverse
Board of Trustees, while the latter has what it calls a "
Board of consultants" which looks to be the same thing.
My main issue is that the web design is a bit dated, so it doesn't look...modern, I suppose? Professional? I'm not sure how to describe it. Anyway, the information both sites contain about al-Aqqad is mostly standard bio stuff but I wanted to check about these two sources here before using them.
MezzoMezzo (
talk) 03:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Página/12 is an Argentine newspaper. During the presidencies of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner it has become a propaganda tool for the government. Having an editorial line favourable to a certain government does not make an unreliable source: the problem is that they give priority to advance their political views, even when that means distorting information, concealing information (even with self-censorship), using slander against politicians that oppose the government, etc.
Could someone please tell me how to revive the thread "Non-peer-reviewed paper used as sole source for two paragraphs of empirical content". This is now archived in archive#200, however, editors are claiming consensus has not been reached and therefore the thread should still be active so that edits can be made. I hope this makes sense.DrChrissy (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Given this remedy with a topic ban regarding "genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted" it would not be wise to push to re-open an archived discussion on genetically modified fish. The TBAN probably does not apply, but the desire to continue hard-to-follow discussions on a related topic may not end well. Regardless of that, reading the opening post at the archived discussion should be sufficient to see the point. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
3G Boss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a TV show, apparently, though I can't find any evidence that anybody outside Walthamstow has watched it. The sourcing on the article looks appalling to me, can someone who has some knowledge of the Bengali British community please review it because right now it reads like a blow-by-blow commentary written by the producer and his mate. Guy ( Help!) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
For some time now editors and socks have been inserting material into articles from a BMJ article, eg today "According to a genetic study in December 2012, Ramesses III and the the famed mummy "Unknown Man E" (probably Pentawer), belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1a. [1]" The article can be read at [30] and [31] which appear to be non-copyvio links. The stated objective is "To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracydescribed in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." The only mention of the haplogroup is in the paragraph which reads "Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1?); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2?). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggests a father-son relationship." Our article is about the genetic history of the demographics of Egypt. This bit of data has been placed in the section on Ancient DNA. Other studies there are described "Consequently, most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt.[9][10][11][12] One successful 1993 study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Dr. Svante Pääbo and Dr. Anna Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.[13]" In another the DNA of ancient mummies is compared to modern Egyptians. All the studies are comparative over time and or space. The Hawass study was not designed to look at these aspects of genetics and I do not think it is a reliable source for this specific use. Without interpretation the haplogroup is just raw data picked out of the study and dropped into this article. If it had been designed to look at lineage over time and/or space it would have had different results.
Every time this is inserted it's clear that it is to argue a case for the race of Egyptians. At one point it even included a statement that the haplogroup's origin was East Africa. The BMJ is without a doubt a reliable source, but the issue here is if it is a reliable source for this bit of data in this particular article. The discussion at Talk:DNA history of Egypt is going nowhere. I and another experienced editor believe it doesn't belong, but it's being argued that because a 2nd editor with about 20 edits thinks we shouldn't hide it from the world it belongs. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Hi all,
in case you don't know, FreeCell is a single-player card game, that became popular after being included in some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about it used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively short sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it. However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or "non-Encyclopaedic".
Right now there's only this section - /info/en/?search=FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks about the fact that FreeCell was proven to be NP-complete.
I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers (including I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists, then at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000 Microsoft FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were written outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less fashionable there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were written by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to verify that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4 minutes. (Verification note below).
Now my questions are:
1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic source that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there are hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question does not mention them at all.
Sorry that this post is quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts. As you can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the hoops one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
Regards, User:Shlomif.
Verification note: one note is that all these programs were not verified/proved as correct by a proof verifier such as Coq , so there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that I did write some automated tests for them.
Shlomif ( talk) 17:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with the use of a scientific dissertation as a source weigh in at [32]. It's not an area I'm very familiar with, and I reverted the addition pending a discussion of the suitability of the material. BMK ( talk) 04:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this a genuine reliable source for stating as a fact that Susan Block is an "ordained minister in the Universal Life Church"? To me it looks more like fantasy islanding with a mix of fact and (erotic) fiction with no line separating the two. Other opinions? Collect ( talk) 22:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Relies very extensively on a source published by the Church or Ashmore ... "Ashmore, Lewis (1977). The Modesto messiah: The famous mail-order minister. Universal Press. ISBN 0-918950-01-5"." "Universal Press" is not an outside publisher which would be consider to produce "reliable source" material.
I find no outside sources for all of the "ordained ministers" even being aware they had been "ordained" by that group, and suggest this "source" be deprecated, the "list" deleted, and those names as "ordained ministers" be removed.
Collect (
talk) 17:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The list also uses sources which say the Church "claims" people as ministers - but do not say they are true claims <g>.
Collect (
talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
[33] shows one person simply reverts to keep the SPS material and the nndb.com material (see
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#NNDB "NNDB is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Worse than that, it was actively spammed to countless articles by people behind the site, as discussed on the WP:EL talk page several times in the past.",
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#NNDB " Agreeing with the above. NNDB is run by the people behind Rotten.com and has a distinctive bend towards sensationalist information (from the article on NNDB here: "one-night stands ... illnesses, phobia, addictions, drug use, criminal records") often with dubious sourcing, sometimes purely speculative. Basically not at all suitable for BLP sourcing ",
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#NNDB "Having looked further... there is some indication that they pull material from... Wikipedia! For us to use it as a source might result in a circular reference.... and as such, I can not call it reliable.",
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_155#http://www.nndb.com "In a word, no. "Our standard is correctness over verifiability (the reverse of Wikipedia)".[76] Previous discussion from this noticeboard has some more info", and so on. I am not allowed to remove this material at all right now - but will someone please tell the reverter that
WP:RS does count still? Thanks.
Collect (
talk) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
A Request for Comments has been started at Talk:List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church#RFC:_Reliable_sources. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 23:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Is
http://taylormarshall.com/ a reliable source for statements about what the
Torah proscribes? It seems like a self-published web site or blog, by a media personality. Specifically, this blog entry -
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/why-did-god-order-death-of-gentile.html is being used to claim that the Torah required the Hebrews to exterminate the people of Canaan , at the
gentile article.
When Other Legends Are Forgotten (
talk) 01:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering. Does this count as a reliable source? Interview on Jacaranda FM about the meaning of "Drop the Pilot" Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 01:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'd really like to get some input from the community about the perceived reliability of Pak101.com. To me, it's a no-brainer that this is another faceless, meaningless blog-style site that doesn't belong at the project, but it's also moderately cited in Pakistani entertainment articles, which causes me concern. As of this note, I see 50 uses here (although that may change since I have also floated a query about this site past the spam blacklist people, and links may start disappearing) The site looks to me to be a typical content-scraping site that may actually be mirroring Wikipedia itself. For instance, this Pak101 article with its infobox and standard Wikipedia sections like "Early life", "Career", "Personal life", etc. looks like it was scraped from Wikipedia. This March 2010 version of the Noor Bukhari article introduces the phrase "She left the film industry due to family issues" which we also find verbatim at the Pak101 article. And the earliest archive of the Pak101 Noor Bukhari article is from April 2013. That doesn't definitively prove that Pak101 scraped Wikipedia, but it may be consistent. Contrarily, we might notice an article at Pak101 like this, which doesn't say too much, but doesn't quite mirror Uroosa Qureshi. So it's possible that Pak101.com scraped Wikipedia once upon a time, but lately has stopped doing that. But there is also a real concern that casual editors might be using old Pak101 Wikipedia scrapes as references, thus creating a problematic self-referencing feedback loop.
Anyhow, the real question is whether or not they are a reliable published source with an established reputation for fact-checking, and I don't see any indication that this is the case. There is no About us page from which we could glean such information. From one of its earliest archives it looks like it was intended as a discussion forum and general whimsy site, not as a reliable news source or entertainment publication. The articles aren't attributed to specific writers. It's also unclear who owns the site, and so forth. I'm going to invite members of Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics to this discussion. Thanks all, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
We have an disagreement on the
Gentile page that is not resolving between the editors, pertaining to RS. The most recent edit by
user:When Other Legends Are Forgotten uses the 1905
Jewish Encyclopedia as an RS, based on the Torah as an RS, to state in the Encyclopedia's voice that the Canaanites engaged in idolatry. The most recent edit is here
[36]. This wording has gone back and forth over the last few days. My position (argued on the
talk page) is that JE is an RS on the content of the Torah/Bible, but not on the history or practices of Gentiles, and that the wording should reflect that position (as was intended by the previous version). Hoping someone will step in on this issue.
Grammar'sLittleHelper (
talk) 05:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Euromaidan Press is used as an RS in a number of articles, including 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis, and others. However, it actually is an extremist website, which published a number of editorials in support of the Right Sector and the Azov battalion (( [37], [38]), [39]), as well as calls to "kill... close relatives of the members of Putin regime", "shell Belgorod" and "disperse uranium to Russia" (i. e. actually propagandizing terrorism). Given all of this, I'm asking to estimate the legitimacy of using it as an RS. -- Buzz105 ( talk) 12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
[40] was ungraciously restored by an editor who templates me as a near-vandal <g> for removing what is clearly self-published stuff from the church's own website.
Is " http://www.ulchq.com/%7Ctitle=Welcome to the official website for Universal Life Church" a reliable source to comprise entire swaths of the article thereon?
The following was also restored:
Only problem is that the church was legally ruled not to be tax-exempt and paid $1.5 million in back taxes in 2000.
And to add insult to injury - the editor then removed
Which appears to be absolutely RS-sourced in my opinion -- which looks alas more like a ULC desired result than a Wikipedia NPOV RS result.
Collect (
talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
References
I had cited this article as a source regarding the closure of Bio (Australian TV channel) on the FYI (U.S. TV channel) article (specifically this section), that Bio channel in Australia had indeed closed.
Another Wikipedia user questioned the validity of using the website [45] as a source because the website "describes itself as a blog", the site's about page describes itself as "the personal blog of Commentator, David Knox" and per WP:BLOGS the website isn't "attached to a news website, which there for indicates that per WP:BLOGS it is not to be used".
My counter argument is that also per WP:BLOGS, the quote ends "..are largely not acceptable as sources", indicating there are exceptions. Additionally, it continues "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Accepting the website describes itself as a blog, I don't think it is an unreliable source. In the afforementioned about page of the website, it describes the author David Knox's career and qualifications, and both he and the website are quoted in mainstream media articles, for example: in News Corp and Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Knox also holds a regular radio position as a television commentator with the ABC and makes comment in media industry publications.
While there are opinion pieces on the website, they are minimal and most content in news based from industry sources, press releases, etc. I don't think they are outlandish claims or self reporting that would make it an unreliable source for Wikipedia.
I should also state that the source is still used in the FYI article, as the editor decided to allow it, but still takes issue with it in a talk page discussion. I would also note TV Tonight is widely quoted across Wikipedia as a source, including by myself on other articles, however note that isn't a reason to keep or exclude it alone.
Also uses a link from the "Universal Life Church" as a source that a specific person is an "ordained minister" of that church. [46] shows the re-use of the ULC "facts" with the comment that claims by an organization are automatically "perfectly acceptable". (Again, a link to an organization's website to support claim about THE SAME ORGANIZATION is a perfectly acceptable primary source) Thanks. Collect ( talk) 14:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I posted previously asking for input about whether the McKinsey Global Institute is a reliable source, but the only response was from an editor that has been following me around after an editing dispute, so I was hoping to get more input. The McKinsey Global Institute publishes peer-reviewed reports on business and economics topics. Their reports are often cited/covered in publications like TIME and The Wall Street Journal. I would consider it similar to an industry analyst firm, where the main thrust of their reports are often covered in the media, but the reports themselves have extensive data about things like market-sizes, demographics within a profession, main imports/exports of a country, etc. that could be useful to an encyclopedia if the reports are considered reliable. McKinsey is not affiliated with the topics it covers (not primary) and the reports are not sponsored by any particular interest (advocacy); it's the research arm of McKinsey, a management consultancy.
I was considering working with them in my usual COI role for self-citation COI, and am trying to get feedback on what is appropriate. In my opinion it is actually much more reliable than the mainstream sources we see more routinely, but I would need to be cautious to avoid weight and un-encyclopedic issue with some of the subject-matter. Open to hearing potentially different opinions from polite, thoughtful, neutral editors and appreciate your time in advance. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 07:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Used to support claims that specific notable persons were "ordained ministers of the Universal Life Church".
http://afinalcurtaincall.blogspot.ca/2015/09/cyd-charisse-1922-2008.html
http://www.myspace.com/lop_magazine/blog/208179804
http://debaclypsenow.blogspot.com/2006/07/im-joiner.html
http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b189118_jason_segel_pronounces_couple_husband.html
http://www.blokesontheblog.co.uk/hunter-s-thompson-and-the-universal-life-church
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/11/tony-danza-shut-up-about-god-already.htm
http://www.wonderwall.com/celebrity/where-are-they-now-girl-groups-23410.gallery?photoId=102845
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3595/John-Wayne-Lorena-Bobbitt-Trials-1993-1994-John-Bobbitt-s-Troubles-Continue.html (self-identified as a "free encyclopedia" by the way)
Which of these meet the requirements of WP:RS please? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 20:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
On the Adland article, user:Grayfell's removal of the following text from the Adland article's Reviews section:
The reason given was "The Business.com bit is clickbait, not journalism. This is just a puff-piece, and is only presented as the blogger's personal opinion, not a representation of the entire site". I checked the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and found nothing about Business.com one way or another. It does not seem to be clickbait to me, but I recognize that that is a matter of opinion. As for a "the blogger's personal opinion", again, this is a review, and as such is going to be personal opinion. If the objection is that writer is a blogger, and thus not a reliable source, WP:NEWSBLOG states that "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."
Grayfell's point is not without merit; I am not restoring this sentence, but instead, I'm submitting Business.com (and the specific reference) to see what the consensus here is. Is Business.com "clickbait"? Does the specific Business.com article cited above fall under those listed as reliable sources under WP:NEWSBLOG? Is Business.com known to exercise sufficient editorial control over their writers/bloggers such that stating "Business.com listed Adland as..." is appropriate?
Thanks for your help with this. Carl Henderson ( talk) 04:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
References
I'm somewhat involved with the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama and the Enemies Within. So far there are only two sources on the article: one from the New American and one from Glenn Beck. The NA source isn't usable since there's a very clear consensus that the NA can only be used to back up information about the John Birch Society and not establish notability.
The Beck one is a bit more unclear. Sourcing from Beck has occasionally been problematic because of some of the claims he's made via his shows and other media. This author and the book appears to have been featured on his book show, but I don't know if this would be the type of thing that we could use as a source to establish notability. I haven't watched the source yet, so I don't know how in-depth it goes or if the author was interviewed about his book or about other material, but I figured that there does need to be a discussion about whether or not material by Beck could be used as a RS, since I don't really see where this has truly been discussed before. (It could be after viewing the video that it was only mentioned briefly in relation to something else, which has happened in a related Loudon article, where the book was mentioned offhand in relation to a larger topic. My main concern here is whether or not Beck is a RS.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I want to write an article about a popular and original book namely Kitab Al Irshad. when i searched the secondary sources i found out that this site http://islamichouseofwisdom.com/al-serat-journal-archives/ , there i could find good sources and information about shia scholars and their books. i want to know that this site and archive could be considered as valid in wikipedia?-- m,sharaf ( talk) 12:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
xplorer² is at AFD, and it looks like there are some sources in Google News. One of the better(-looking) ones is this. It's not in the article yet, but it looks like it would be used to support a statement like:
xplorer2 contains dockable panes, dual bookmanks, and a shell context menu.
.
Does anyone have more info? Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 22:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone knows of the net_gross field in the infobox for BLP articles. Now one user I have been encountering, Special:Contributions/Tobydrew8, has been adding a source called Richest.com, especially this url, to update the net worth of the Lady Gaga article. I have reverted it thrice now since I believe this is not even a remotely reliable source, and fails accountability or any credibility. I have invited the editor also, since it seems he/she kind of pays no attention to any warnings or any explanation and is refusing to refrain from adding this url. So need input from the community here on this website and its credibility. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
They are being used, as raw data, at Michael Efroimsky. I didn't think we normally include these, although perhaps as I can't find anything discussing him they might be intended to show notability. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of military history/biography articles that list sources either in Further reading or in References that are not used for citations. I'm seeking input on whether they should be kept or removed.
Author: Gordon Williamson
Article: Herbert Otto Gille
Book in question:
Williamson is considered an "admirer" of Waffen-SS, who "sought to restore [its] tarnished reputation in the West and reiterate its superb fighting qualities by letting the veterans tell their stories. The results are predictably positive."
[1]. Cited to:
MacKenzie, S.P. (2014).
Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. Routledge.
ISBN
978-0415867771. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Author: Karl Alman, aka Franz Kurowski
Articles: Adelbert Schulz; Hans-Detloff von Cossel; Hermann Bix; Hermann Hoth
Books in question:
Karl Alman is a pseudonym of Franz Kurowski; the translated title of the 1st book is Panzers: The dramatic history of German armored forces and their brave soldiers.
In their work The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture, historians Smelser and Davies characterize Kurowski as a leading "guru" (gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army and, in particular, the Waffen-SS"). Franz Kurowski, a veteran of the Eastern front, saw his two major works released in the U.S. in 1992 (Panzer Aces and 1994 (Infantry Aces). Smelser & Davis write: [2]
Kurowski, like all true gurus, ignores the charges of serious misdeeds leveled against the German military and provides a heroic context for the men he describes in his many works.... [He] gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior... Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards.
Kurowski's accounts are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light", they conclude. [3]
Also see: Kurowski on De Wikipedia
(Citations are from Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008).
The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN
9780521833653. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help))
Author: Günther Fraschka
Article: Herbert Otto Gille
Book in question:
I don't have a secondary source for Knights of the Reich but I believe some original research is permitted when evaluating sources for inclusion. Title speaks for itself (IMO), but here's an Amazon review:
That Gunther Fraschka is a hero worshipper, not a biographer and certainly not a scholar, is painfully evident in this collection of sketches purporting to commemorate the deeds of Hitler's greatest heroes. Worse, his writing style is atrocious (or Johnston's translation is), consisting of prose more appropriate to a high-school essay than a serious study of the essence of heroism.
Author: Florian Berger
Article: Hermann Hoth
Book in question:
I don't have access to the book, but here's a sample of his writing in Face of Courage, The: The 98 Men Who Received the Knight's Cross and the Close-Combat Clasp in Gold: link. The tone and the narrative does not sound like that of an objective, reputable historian.
References
I therefore question the inclusion of the works by these authors in the bibliography as biased and not written by reputable historians.
More, they serve no purpose in the articles as they are not used for citations.
Per WP:MILMOS:
Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. (Emphasis mine)
I earlier had two separate discussions on this topic on other (separate) articles, where the issue was resolved quickly. Here are the discussions in question:
Disagreements arose as to whether keep the books I listed (and similar) in several other articles (above), so I'm seeking further input in this matter. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated on an RfC on the inclusion of Overtime Politics polls here. 108.2.58.56 ( talk) 15:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Original Diff/Edit [49] "The term refers to the fact that, 'Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.'"
Most recent Diff/Edit [50] "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which '[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms'."
My concern is that the ATF source [51] isn't specifically referencing, nor does it mention, GSL, and the "ATF top ten FAQ" feels a bit inappropriate in it's capacity as an RS in this context for the lead in this article. Darknipples ( talk) 01:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In addition, the original source (which was removed/excluded) [52] contains this reference, originally used in the GSL article lead. "The perceived gap in the law is the source of a commonly used, albeit somewhat flawed term — “the gun-show loophole.” Darknipples ( talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This is on the wrong board. This is a content dispute not a question of reliability. J8079s ( talk) 18:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Can Discogs be used for album credits, track length ect on an albums page as a RS? Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started a RFC to discuss the proliferation of personal blogs and fansites in cuesport articles, usually to source sporting statistics. The RFC isn't gaining much traction so I am bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. The RFC is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?. A huge number of articles are affected (i.e. hundreds) so it would be great if we could get some community input to settle this for once and for all i.e. when does a good blog become a "reliable source"? Does BLPSPS still apply to sport stats and so forth? Betty Logan ( talk) 07:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this entry in the 'Communities Directory' by the Fellowship for Intentional Community a reliable source for the subject Manitonquat, which is a BLP currently throwing up a number of interesting reliable source questions? It's a wiki, but there's a solid-looking org behind it. It's currently the subject of a kickstarter. The site does do a good job of linking to both positive and negative materials about the subject. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor is adding dubious record chart information to song articles citing a web site bullfrogspond.com (see example diff). The chart information being added to Wikipedia is variously described as "Billboard year-end chart" or "Whitburn rankings". The web site in question appears to be a hobbyist web site created by an "avid music lover" who "threw this site together just for a few friends to use." This is obviously the creator's own rankings as they don't match the actual Billboard year-end charts, nor do they appear in Whitburn's books. It also appears this web site represents a copyright violation as it contains copyrighted research from Billboard (magazine) or Joel Whitburn, which he apparently has run afoul with. How can this be considered a reliable source? Piriczki ( talk) 14:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I brought this up duing the holidays, bad timing. Resurrecting it now. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
For some time now editors and socks have been inserting material into articles from a BMJ article, eg today "According to a genetic study in December 2012, Ramesses III and the the famed mummy "Unknown Man E" (probably Pentawer), belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1a. [1]" The article can be read at [53] and [54] which appear to be non-copyvio links. The stated objective is "To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracydescribed in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." The only mention of the haplogroup is in the paragraph which reads "Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1?); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2?). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggests a father-son relationship." Our article is about the genetic history of the demographics of Egypt. This bit of data has been placed in the section on Ancient DNA. Other studies there are described "Consequently, most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt.[9][10][11][12] One successful 1993 study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Dr. Svante Pääbo and Dr. Anna Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.[13]" In another the DNA of ancient mummies is compared to modern Egyptians. All the studies are comparative over time and or space. The Hawass study was not designed to look at these aspects of genetics and I do not think it is a reliable source for this specific use. Without interpretation the haplogroup is just raw data picked out of the study and dropped into this article. If it had been designed to look at lineage over time and/or space it would have had different results.
Every time this is inserted it's clear that it is to argue a case for the race of Egyptians. At one point it even included a statement that the haplogroup's origin was East Africa. The BMJ is without a doubt a reliable source, but the issue here is if it is a reliable source for this bit of data in this particular article. The discussion at Talk:DNA history of Egypt is going nowhere. I and another experienced editor believe it doesn't belong, but it's being argued that because a 2nd editor with about 20 edits thinks we shouldn't hide it from the world it belongs. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
I'm helping a new editor, Kirk Leonard, who is writing his first article about an early settler in Massachusetts ( Draft:Isaac Stearns). He's wanting to include a paragraph about notable descendants, and is sourcing that paragraph, in part, to this website. I tend to be wary of using genealogy websites as sources in Wikipedia, as a lot of them rely on user-generated content. I've not heard of this one before. They have this disclaimer on some (but not all) pages:
Please note: The ancestor reports on this website have been compiled from thousands of different sources, many over 100 years old. These sources are attached to each ancestor so that you can personally judge their reliability. As with any good genealogical research, if you discover a link to your own family tree, consider it a starting point for further research. It is always preferable to locate primary records where possible. FamousKin.com cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy and reliability of these sources.
So, is this website a reliable source for listing notable descendants of this early settler? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the help everybody. I'll remove that source as unreliable. Kirk Leonard ( talk) 20:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.toptenz.net/10-abandoned-malls-around-world-change-title.php
I would like to create an article for the Greeley Mall in Greeley, Colo. Is this a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppy9000 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
What do you folks think of High Country News? Disclaimer - I did add some glowing praise to that article before posting here Earlier today, Somedifferentstuff ( talk · contribs) decided to challenge a large edit I made, and in the edit summary he questioned the RS quality of that source. To be clear, the ping to SomeDifferentstuff is my first communication about this to him/her, and we're not at loggerheads. I just thought this would be a reasonable place to involve additional eds in the discussion.
Comments on this source anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Reliable for coverage regarding western Colorado only. [57]. Anything beyond that area will e covered by national news (or outside western Colorado local news) if it's notable. -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Through in-depth reporting, High Country News covers the American West's public lands, water, natural resources, grazing, wilderness, wildlife, logging, politics, communities, growth and other issues now changing the face of the West. From Alaska and the Northern Rockies to the desert Southwest, from the Great Plains to the West Coast, High Country News’ coverage spans 12 Western states and is the leading source for regional environmental news, analysis and commentary -- an essential resource for those who care about this region.NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Noting the usual caveat - the source includes opinion and commentary - and, as ever, opinions should be cited and sourced as opinion, and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. And this is true of every source pretty much across the board - opinions are not "facts." Collect ( talk) 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Clarification_question_on_the_policy which is entirely relevant to this noticeboard. -- ℕ ℱ 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There is some disagreement over at Men Going Their Own Way (on talk page at 1 and 2) about the use of freiewelt.net as a source. Below is the statement and reference in question. Is this source a reliable source for this statement? (Note: I don't have any stake in this, I'm just sick of the bickering about it)
The German periodical Freie Welt compared MGTOW to the trend of Herbivore men in Japan and the overall decline of American men choosing to become married as described in Helen Smith's book, Men on Strike. [1]
References
Das Phänomen MGTOW lässt sich in Europa und der gesamten englischsprachigen Welt beobachten. Das japanische bzw. ostasiatische Pendant dazu sind die „Herbivore Men". In Japan trägt dieser Trend erheblich zum Bevölkerungsschwund bei.... Eine neues Buch zu diesem Thema ist von der US-amerikanischen Psychologin Dr. Helen Smith unter dem Titel „Men On Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – And Why It Matters" (Encounter Books: New York 2013) erschienen.
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 09:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Permstrump: I'm in agreement now that Freie Welt a biased source, so it would seem the only disagreement is how contentious it is to compare MGTOW to herbivore men. Just going from the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on herbivore men (e.g. they are "...men who have no interest in getting married or finding a girlfriend") in that regard both groups are virtually identical. On the other hand, I can see a few subtle differences. For example some self-published MGTOW sources discuss having short-term relationships (e.g. which would entail finding a girlfriend) and it could be argued that the phenomenon of herbivore men is more emergent based on socioeconomic changes (the same could be said about the decreasing trend in marriage in America) where as MGTOW is more deliberate. That being said, there are still obvious similarities between them. Would you still have an objection to these comparisons if the similarities and differences where explained in a less ambiguous way? - Scarpy ( talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There has been some other discussion of this here: Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#Edits_in_the_spirit_of_compromised_offered_on_RSN. - Scarpy ( talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's been a dispute going on in the article White savior narrative in film which revolvers around the inclusion of the film 12 Years a Slave. This dispute involves myself, 70.190.188.48, Erik, and Betty Logan. We've taken this to WP:DRN, where it was more or less agreed that this was the right venue to take the dispute after it turned out that the dispute revolved mainly around the sources. The sources in question are presented here (see agreement on sources [58], [59]) and a RfC is humbly requested, as per [60]. Apologies if anything is unclear.
Sources in question
|
---|
|
Dschslava ( talk) 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the entirely of the sources listed above, I see no reason to exclude this film from that article. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:32, 15 January 2016 (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 195 | ← | Archive 199 | Archive 200 | Archive 201 | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | → | Archive 205 |
There have been many threads about IMDB on this page. I did an archive search and found some varying opinions. While I did not look through every page that mentions Imdb, I came to the conclusion that either there's no clear consensus except that it's often unreliable. But perhaps there is consensus and I'm just not seeing it.
The primary question is for what purposes do we consider Imdb a reliable source?
The specific example here is here. I removed Imdb as a reference from Mickey Rooney and Rms125a@hotmail.com reverted with edit summary "IMDB is QUITE unreliable re personal details/biodata, etc; but IMDb is QUITE reliable regarding credits, roles, etc".
I have not heard this blanket "Imdb is reliable for credits, roles, etc." argument before, and I can accept that perhaps my understanding of Imdb is incorrect but would like to make sure.
Based on some of the archived discussions, the secondary question is: what conditions, if any, must be in place for Imdb to be considered a reliable source for such purposes? For example, I saw mention of some sort of WGA certification or other indication that might exist on an Imdb page which makes it reliable? (I looked through a few profiles and haven't seen any such indicator -- perhaps it requires Imdb Pro?).
To add a little more context, there's some fishy business going on with some articles related to Warren Chaney. Many of the articles about his films and associates rely almost exclusively on user-generated content, publications for which there is no trace, and primary/self-published sources. Given the poor sourcing, I looked for pages linking to America: A Call to Greatness (the most egregiously promoted, by now-blocked sock puppets -- and indeed it was one of the socks who added the link to the Rooney article), and removed mention of the film where it only referenced Imdb and/or Americamovie.com (which was in every case). I'm going to ping a few other people not because I have any idea of where they stand regarding Imdb, but because the answer to this question would also affect their edits related to Chaney: @ Tokyogirl79, NinjaRobotPirate, and Dbrodbeck: — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:03, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
"IMDb content is user-submitted and often subject to incorrect speculation and rumor. The use of the IMDb on Wikipedia for referencing is considered unacceptable and strongly discouraged".
It is not like Wikipedia where anyone can add anything. IMDB requires completion of a "New Title Submission Form." Normally films in production are not accepted unless proof is submitted. While registered users submit changes they are checked by IMDB staff before inclusion. There is a process for requesting corrections. [3]
Errors will occur in the most reliable sources. The New York Times has reported errors in their reporting every day this week. Today alone they reported 20 errors. Yet we consider them reliable because they have standards for fact checking and correcting errors. Sometimes editors will find errors in reliable sources before they are corrected and we can challenge them. It does not mean we reject the source, otherwise we would have no sources for articles.
TFD ( talk) 00:38, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
See [4] for the discussion.
"you made an accusation so you wish to hide the proof your accusation was utterly wrong? sheesh!"... WP:POINT much?
"The newspaper used to do fact-checking"(which, of course, implies that they no longer engage in the activity of fact-checking)? Are you trying to say that because they don't have a proofreading department or someone with the title of "fact-checker", they don't "do fact-checking"? And where is there "proof" that they "rely on press releases rather than using actual reporters", which, of course, would mean they don't use actual reporters (or don't "rely" on them, I guess?) Regardless, I'll again reiterate this is a complete tangent that adds nothing to the discussion, and should still be hatted (I'll leave that to someone else, though). — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:36, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
Rhododendrites, RS/IMDB is not a guideline, and it links to an essay explaining how to use IMDB ( Wikipedia:Citing IMDb). RS/IMDB says data can be used if it "is labeled as originating from credentialed members of the sites' editorial staff, rather than users." Clearly we should not use reader postings in discussion threads, storyline, biography etc. But then we should not be using tertiary sources for that type of information anyway.
As a general rule, this board should be used to enquire about specific text rather than sources in general, since most sources are reliable for some things but not for others. So I will provide an example, the upcoming Sisters (2015 film). The infobox provides basic details on directors, producers, writers, stars, release dates, budgets, etc. No other source provides all that information. I imagine all this detail was taken from IMDB, yet it is not cited. There are cites for only three facts: music, running time and budget. Yet the music writer could have changed since it was reported, the running time in the UK may not be the same as the rest of world and there is no reason why the budget info should be taken from Box Office Mojo, which is owned by IMDB, rather than IMDB.
So what should we do? Use IMDB as a source and not cite them? Or delete most of the information in the infobox?
TFD ( talk) 20:18, 14 December 2015 (UTC)
The question arises from a friendly discussion on the Donald Trump page. I am not including diffs as there really is no dispute at the moment and the failed verification templates I put on two references in the political campaign section are likely to be amicably resolved. However the same sort of issue may be elsewhere on the page; I found it the first place I checked for it.
Assuming that there does in fact exist a first-hand link to an audio clip of Donald Trump "clarifying" something he said several days earlier, would this be RS for saying that subsequenty he said that of course he had said no such thing?
In other words, Trump was initially reported to have said that all Muslim travel to the United States must be shut down. In the referenced article is a link to a film clip with an embedded phone-in from Donald Trump saying well of course US citizens are different. Yes I did listen to it that far, a voice does say that. It also talks about 9-11 and no-go zones in Paris and....you don't want to know, really you don't. In other words, the publisher is RS, it's a respectable talk show, I think, broadcast news, it's RS that he *said* it but otherwise...speechless. Surely this statement can be found somewhere in print? This is the Republican frontrunner, discussing a matter of national security and human rights. You'd like to think it would get covered.
Yet two days earlier another publication reported a named staffer saying "Mr Trump says everyone". That sounds pretty definite. I don't know that "clarify" is the right word here. My personal opinion is that we should document each pronouncement with RS, as opposed to buying into the idea each time that there was simply some misunderstanding. Do people agree? Also, what is the best documentation (video? audio? analysis?) of what Donald Trump did or did not say or might or might not favor as a candidate? Elinruby ( talk) 23:33, 13 December 2015 (UTC)
Is a reliable source?
2A02:582:C74:6C00:A436:91E7:2A35:6D9A (
talk) 19:37, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry, I′m trying to ask about a website but I got an error all three times I tried to post the link. Anyway, I′m talking about ref no. 3 at Joey DeMaio. 2A02:582:C74:6C00:A436:91E7:2A35:6D9A ( talk) 19:40, 15 December 2015 (UTC)
This isn't the first time The Daily Mail has straight-out fabricated a news story. Even if they had guessed right on the verdict, the story was pre-written and was in no way an actual report of what happened. When are we finally going to say that we have had enough of this and declare The Daily Mail to be an inherently unreliable source? When are we going to decide once and for all that if something is in The Daily Mail the editor must find another source, and that if it is only in The Daily Mail we have no idea whether it actually happened as reported? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:11, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
Sorry - no newspaper is a good source for celebrity gossip at all ("instant analysis" included)-- but that does not mean the DM is to be ruled out as a reliable source otherwise. This has been discussed it seems dozens of times - and the consensus here has never been to blacklist the newspaper. Cheers. Collect ( talk) 18:24, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
More fabrication by The Daily Mail:
And yes, I did puposely include several non-reliable (but better than The Daily Mail!) sources in the above list. I wanted to see if any of the DM supporters could point that out without imploding from the irony. :) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
by Sydney Smith, writing for iMediaEthics
"UK print regulatory body the Press Complaints Commission “censured” the Daily Mail for its October 3 fake story reporting the wrong verdict in American student Amanda Knox’s trial, the Guardian’s Roy Greenslade reported. As we wrote at the time, soon after an Italian court found Knox not guilty in the murder of her roommate, the Mail published a story with the wrong verdict saying she had been found guilty. Shortly after publication, the Mail pulled the story from its website. The Mail published a story with the correct verdict (not guilty) and apologized for the error.
According to Greenslade, in response to the incident, the Mail started an internal review into the incident and “disciplined the person responsible for the error.” We wrote Oct. 5 about the announcement of the Mail’s internal review. The Mail claimed that the article was up only for 30 seconds, however, Seattle Weekly said the article was up for about half an hour.
Possibly most egregious, the Daily Mail’s article included quotes from prosecutors on the (fake) guilty ruling and reported on Knox’s reaction to the (fake) guilty ruling. The PCC’s ruling (see here) said that complainants questioned those quotes from prosecutors about the verdict of guilty, and a description of what happened after the guilty verdict. According to the PCC, the complaints were made by “members of the public.”
The PCC’s ruling noted that the Daily Mail claimed the quotations “had been obtained from the prosecution in advance of the trial.” However, even if that is true, iMediaEthics notes that there is no possible way for the Mail to explain away its claim that Knox “looked stunned” in response to the phony guilty verdict. That part of the story was clearly fabricated and a guess on behalf of the Daily Mail as to how Knox would react."
Source: http://www.imediaethics.org/pcc-censures-uk-daily-mail-for-fabricated-amanda-knox-story/ (emphasis added)
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:23, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
This has been discussed far too many times - and the answer remains the same - the Daily Mail and all newspapers have problems with celebrity news, but the statistics show that for other news the Daily Mail is just about the same as all newspapers - the desire to blacklist this source is simply contrary to the intent of WP:RS. And like all sources, any given claim may be given weight depending on the nature of the claim, but not on a bias that one does not like the source - I hold the same for "Russia Today", the "New York Daily News", "Huffington Post" etc. and basically all printed or media sources. And one major problem is that virtually none of them do any fact-checking at all, and most rely heavily on press releases. Perhaps we should say "no newspapers are actually reliable sources if they have no fact-checkers working at the newspaper" but that would mean we dump the New York Times etc. as well. Recall that major newspapers reported on an "amphibious" baseball player ... Collect ( talk) 03:28, 12 December 2015 (UTC)
Comment We are not just talking about a newspaper getting some facts wrong, or even about a rogue reporter, we are talking about a newspaper that knowingly published a wholly frabricated story. What makes a source reliable is its editorial oversight, and there is clearly something very wrong with the editorial oversight at the Daily Mail. Yes, they carry out rock solid journalism in some cases but how can we have confidence in their editorial oversight to weed out errors and poor journalism when they knowingly publish fabricated stories? Personal blogs may publish accurate stories but we don't permit them on the basis that they are usually correct; we prohibit them because there is no reliable editorial oversight and this is the case for the Daily Mail now. Betty Logan ( talk) 13:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
http://www.sps-automotive.com/en_sps/track/07Nt_zonda.html http://twinrev.com/cars/Fastest-Production-car-supercars-20.6km-Nurburgring-lap-times-under-9-03.30-7119945 http://www.mobisux.com/ubbthreads.php?ubb=showflat&Number=3096509 http://fastestlaps.com/tracks/nordschleife http://www.zeperfs.com/en/classement-ci1.htm I have verified nurburgring laptimes in those site all the laptimes existing there seem to be correct.
Your input is requested at Talk:Bijeljina massacre#RfC: Should this article make reference to the Bosnian Serb politician Biljana Plavšić stepping over the body of a dead Bosniak to kiss the Serb paramilitary leader Željko Ražnatović (aka Arkan) Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 00:57, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
http://amgtve.formusiciansonly.com/
Is this a reliable source that could be used to create content? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirk Leonard ( talk • contribs)
OK, so can I add content sourced to the book and also start new articles based on pedals described in the book?
Are two sources enough for a topic, or should it be three or more?
Cracked.com has a humor article titled "6 Reasons You've Probably Read Russian Propaganda Today". [17] [18] Key quote: "Because of the way Facebook works, if you find yourself clicking on a lot of articles from a website -- say Russia Today or Sputnik -- because it had one of those headlines you just had to check out, new articles from that same site will show up more frequently in your news feed. And they won't all look instantly crazy." The same is true of Google, and any number of other sites that customize content according to what (they think) interests you. Clearly this works the other way as well: if someone only looks at legitimate news sites they will see more links to legitimate news sites, which would lead to underestimating the amount of crazy out there. The "fun" begins when members of those two groups each try to edit the same Wikipedia page according to the sources Facebook or Google spoonfeeds them, often followed by a trip here. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:04, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
The source in the subject, published by J.J. Fedorowicz Publishing, is used heavily in Joachim Peiper, currently linked from the main page "On this day" section. There has been some doubt voiced at Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte about the use of this source (which, honestly, I share). Some more input would be appreciated. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 22:20, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
There is a dispute over allowable content on "divine revelations" concerning the biblical messenger Gabriel. Wikiisawesome is using specious boilerplate arguments to violate my First Amendment freedom of religion beliefs, for not being considered reliable, by him, under personal bias. Under the scapegoat that the II Revelation isn't reliable source, according to policy. Citing various policies which may apply to "reliable sources" when there is an authentic debatable factual dispute over quality of sources. He is not able to point me to one "provable source of information on Gabriel." Yet, he says that this is the reason why my post is disqualified. He then attempts to use "self-publishing" source as the chancellor's foot, even though in the book itself, the divine revelation was that it could not be published for commercial use. And with no offer to potential offer to publishers (to gauge its religious/literary value), this would be extremely arbitrary to say that it is not a quality work (having in the very least artistic, educational, and literary value, on the subject matter).
I feel the bottomline is that there is no way to truly apply reliable source policies on coherent works of literature that describe spiritual beings. Because the book is published on Amazon.com and is coherent, and has literary value on the subject matter; it should be included in public discourse to determine its relation within the Wiki-content by the individual reader. This is more on point with the content neutral perspective of Wikipedia, to offer perspectives from all angles, that is not showing bias towards a particular religious belief.
If the II Revelation were not a high quality biblical work, and had no literary or educational value, then I would find that sufficient to say that it lacks relevance to the serious educational content of the Wikipedia page. But, since it is a high quality, well written work, that is written in a style similar to the Young's Literal Translation of the Bible, quoted often therein; it certainly is of educational value on the subject matter, and of strong relevance. Even though it is a noncanonical work, and is not ancient. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 16:26, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The Revelation given to John of Patmos starts in a similar manner?
Rev 1:1 A revelation of Jesus Christ, that God gave to him, to shew to his servants what things it behoveth to come to pass quickly; and he did signify `it', having sent through his messenger to his servant John, Rev 1:2 who did testify the word of God, and the testimony of Jesus Christ, as many things also as he did see.
Does it violate the Reliable Source rule?
There is no per se rule against self-published sources, as you are trying to interpret it. And, when the source of information is not provable, as there is no way to prove the revelation given to John was real; then there is no way to say that there is a reliable source or not. The revelation given to John is more commonly accepted and known, because of its age; not because it presents provable testimony. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 17:56, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
The concept behind the II Revelation, is that it is the fulfilment of I Revelation 10:11 Rev 10:11 and he saith to me, `It behoveth thee again to prophesy about peoples, and nations, and tongues, and kings -- many.' That John of Patmos must prophesy again in the future, and write a second revelation. And, the fulfilment of the gospel of John words, that John would somehow remain until the second coming.
John 21:21 Peter having seen this one, saith to Jesus, `Lord, and what of this one?' John 21:22 Jesus saith to him, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee? be thou following me.' This word, therefore, went forth to the brethren that that disciple doth not die, John 21:23 yet Jesus did not say to him, that he doth not die, but, `If him I will to remain till I come, what -- to thee?'
Thus, the II Revelation, has credence for allegedly fulfilling these prophecies, and whether it did or not, is open to endless debate; as is the rest of the bible. But, the arguable basis alone, is sufficient to make it of educational value on the subject matter. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 18:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Then where exactly does the RS for these writings come from? If they are not based on writings from John? Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 18:13, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
( edit conflict)First of all you have no First Amendment rights here as we aren't the US government or even a state or local government. I also agree that this isn't a reliable source. Additionally, I note that an edit of yours says "that is virtually unknown to the general public." Wikipedia is not a venue for new ideas, which this appears to be. Doug Weller ( talk) 19:24, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
All of your arguments are complete nonsense. They are fundamentally illogical. You are saying that a self-published author who recently wrote a noncanonical biblical book, in which he describes his vision of Gabriel; cannot be relevant or posted onto an article on Gabriel. Because there is no way to verify the author had this vision, or that it actually was Gabriel, and his book was not published by a commercial corporation putting their reputation behind the allegation that it was Gabriel, and that there is no reliable source to prove that it was Gabriel; and also that there is a blanket restriction on the inclusion of citation to newly published material on Wikipedia. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 20:12, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Well, according to another user, II Revelation would count as a primary source. And, people obviously care about the subject matter, because it discusses Gabriel. People may not be aware of the primary source because it was just published last month. Citing facts from such a primary source without basing the entire article on it, is permissible according to the policy. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 23:41, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
As stated on Gabriel edit page: I don't see how the link is relevant, when I am not writing an entire article about II Revelation; I merely quoted a few verses for an article on Gabriel, of relevance. Second of all, I am not promoting a new word, idea, or invention. Notoriety is only relevant, when it involves writing an entirely new article on a topic; that it must be considered of value by someone (representative of the public at large). Information on Gabriel, historic, and how it is evolving in recent literature and media, is all relevant to the topic of the Gabriel article, which has well-established notoriety. I think your getting too deep into the commercial value of the book and saturation into media, rather than its relevance, as a modern noncanonical primary source work briefly cited on point of the topic. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 03:10, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Every other breath there is some new angle, to say that II Revelation doesn't meet the standards for inclusion. My time is more precious than to waste it arguing with close-minded people. You can interpret the policies any way you like, apparently if you all gang up saying that new users are wrong; it seems fine. But, the record is against you; by your own words, how you have changed your specious reasoning at least thirty different times; it stinks of fraud. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 11:07, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
I do not believe any of your myriads of mercurial excuses are valid. But, like I said, it is not worth my time to argue. Upon retrospection, it is probably better that I keep knowledge of the book underground; because that is what ruined the original Christian movement, with too many fake Christians. Besides, it makes the rest of the article sources look patently fraudulent/not very compelling/fragmented/etc. Hungarywhitebear ( talk) 23:12, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello, I just would like to check whether the sources provided in Yasser Hareb article are reliable or not? could you please advise in this regard?. The article is proposed for deletion for unreliable sources reason, but I don't know what is wrong with the sources that I've provided. He has his own page for his weekly articles on the official websites of official newspapers from the UAE and Middle East region. In addition to that, I've provided some sources about his tv show on the official website of official channels in the UAE as well as some sources about his books. Badis1988 ( talk) 19:57, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
Hello [[User:Comatmebro|Comatmebro] what about the other sources used in the article? are they reliable or not? you just advised me about one source, thanks. Badis1988 ( talk) 17:53, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Checking to see if I am correct that this source is a commercial, for-profit site and hence not an RS for articles about horse bits. It was proposed as a source at bit mouthpiece and the same editor is currently working on a draft at Draft:Dr. Bristol (Horse Bit). The topic meets notability for horse bits, and it was kind of my idea that the writer try to create a new article, but now I'm getting concerned that there is a COI going on. So anyway, before I go bite a newbie, thought I'd get some feedback. There are plenty of other sources out there about horse bits. Montanabw (talk) 00:29, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
An editor has been adding Indonesian sources to some articles with questionable notability. One of them is this source being used at Cemre Melis Çınar. My language skills don't extend this far but it appears to be an anonymous blog and so would not be a reliable source. Am I correct in assuming this? The editor in question has used similar sources at Isabella Damla Güvenilir, Selin Sezgin and Volkan Çolpan. -- AussieLegend ( ✉) 07:26, 21 December 2015 (UTC)
Bruce Eder writes many articles I come across. He has written music and movie criticism for not only AllMusic, but also the Criterion Collection, the most prestigious DVD label, as well as a host of other publications. [1] He also wrote the liner notes for the Rolling Stones' Singles Collection (deluxe box set). He seems to be a writer of impeccable professional credentials and that his work, regardless of whatever venue it appears in, should be considered reliable. would I be correct? Garagepunk66 ( talk) 03:42, 19 December 2015 (UTC)
References
This Indian National Award winning book by G. Dhananjayan, besides many factually incorrect claims, contains considerable plagiarism from our articles. I have not read the whole book, but some examples include the chapters about Karnan, Pavalakkodi and Vallinam. Those who have read the book to any extent, like Vensatry and Ssven2 (when your internet improves) are encouraged to participate in this discussion. Kailash29792 ( talk) 16:41, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:ExxonMobil#Request for comment: ExxonMobil among most vocal climate change deniers. Issues of reliability of sources have been raised. Thanks. Hugh ( talk) 15:45, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I would like to request some feedback on whether the McKinsey Global Institute (MGI) is a reliable source, because I am considering helping them contribute to business/economics topics with a self-citation COI. MGI publishes data-based, peer-reviewed, papers on business/economics topics. I would compare them to reports published by industry analysts.
For example, lets say I were to add this MGI report to the Gender pay gap page with something like "According to a study by The McKinsey Global Institute, global GDP would be increased by $28 trillion if the gender gap was closed." Articles in The Wall Street Journal and TIME Magazine that covered the report could also be cited. However, lets say I also wanted to add freely licensed diagrams from page VII and 28 showing gender gap breakdowns by region and by industry respectively. Those aren't covered by press sources and could only be added by relying on MGI alone as an RS.
The type of stuff I would like to add to Wikipedia is their data on market-sizes, demographics, projections, etc.
David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 16:57, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Re-posted from
User_talk:EdJohnston#Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change at the request of User:NewsAndEventsGuy
Biscuittin (
talk) 16:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC) strikeout added by me since this is part is untrue.
NewsAndEventsGuy (
talk) 16:41, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
There is another edit war in progess at Scientific opinion on climate change. The point at issue is whether two scientific papers are, or are not, reliable sources. Could you please advise how I can get an independent opinion on this. Biscuittin ( talk) 09:46, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
The content I added to Iran-Iraq war was removed by a user. I'd like to know if the article is not reliable. I thought the article was well sourced bedsides being written by a scholar, so it seemed reliable to me. Mhhossein ( talk) 07:27, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
I came across this when editing Foster's Home for Imaginary Friends. I cited video game/film/television website ScrewAttack, specifically this link: [23]. The content in the article reads: " ScrewAttack.com placed the series among the top 20 greatest Cartoon Network shows of all time, praising its "fleshed out" and "memorable" characters, as well as its comedy style, stating that it "not only appealed to younger audiences, but to all age groups"." Cheers, K atástas i (κατάσταση) 03:49, 17 December 2015 (UTC)
Just to make a comment, it looks as though this article was user-submitted so obviously this shouldn't be considered reliable. This shouldn't be used to figure out Screwattack's reliability. Besides, the user hasn't posted there since 2013. GamerPro64 04:46, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
This is an article about a Russian insult to President Obama. There's one reliable source, the Times of London, that mentions it in passing. There are a couple of other sources that sorta talk about the insult, but not about Obama. Most of the sources are blogs, joking websites, or at about the intellectual level of "Entertainment Tonight". Or just plain propaganda. You probably need to know a bit of Russian to judge what's happening here, but any help appreciated. Smallbones( smalltalk) 04:15, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Russian sites I dont care, but I don't see why this newspice about a French moron governor visiting Russia from Romanian website Reporter virtual is unreliable. This news was all over Europe. Starting from France itself- üser:Altenmann >t 04:38, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
P.S.@ Smallbones: I believe the issue is moot now; I will not contest the deletion of text, because I added a couple of ironclad sources to demonstrate the notability of the subject in Russian propaganda war. - üser:Altenmann >t 05:01, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
I've removed a couple more unnotable facts. This part was even funny: [24] ("Professor Sergei Zhuk gives a yet another another plausible explanation. [end of paragraph]" citing a source that is actually a blog post by Sergei Zhuk. Who is the person, what's his explanation, and did he refer to himself in the third person or something?) -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 13:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
Help! The author continues reverting. My only explanation is that he can't read Russian and doesn't understand what he uses as sources and he wants to save his article at all costs. (
It was nearly deleted at AfD just a few days ago.)
Look at this, this is what he restored:
I personally think the article should have been deleted at AfD. -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 00:29, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
And here (
here)
*(cur | prev) 11:38, December 20, 2015 Moscow Connection (talk | contribs) . . (4,086 bytes) (-748) . . (The sources don't say it.) (undo | thank) **Yes they say. Anway, I deleted the second one, since it is just an advert. - üser:Altenmann [[user talk:Altenmann|>'''t''']] 23:11, 21 December 2015 (UTC)}}
Where exacly do the sources say, "It is usually used as a sticker for cars". Where? (It's just an example why this whole deal is just too frustrating.) -- Moscow Connection ( talk) 05:36, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
The Guardian frequently prints articles by feminist campaigners which contain claims which are later proven to be untrue, and which are not corrected or retracted. One of the more notable examples is the false claim against Tim Hunt, which revolves around whether Hunt was speaking in jest or sincerely, and whether the audience reaction indicated that Hunt's statement was being taken as jest. The false claim by Connie St Louis is still on the Guardian's website right now: "They were deeply offended and didn’t get Hunt’s “jokes”. Nobody was laughing."
For further information, Wikipedia's own article is an excellent resource ( /info/en/?search=Tim_Hunt). I urge readers to look at the article's talk page and take note of the editors who grasp at every straw possible to retain the defamatory claims against Hunt in the article, in Wikipedia's voice, despite excellent secondary sources confirming that an audio recording proved the audience laughed at Hunt's jokes. "The recording shows Sir Tim's concluding remarks were followed by laughter and appreciative applause." The article even includes the audio recording, which captures the laughter with crystal clarity.
The Guardian is not unaware that their defamation of Mr. Hunt is problematic; see this article referring to it: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/13/responding-to-criticism-of-our-coverage-of-the-tim-hunt-affair
Regardless, Connie St Louis' defamatory lie is still on the Guardian's website at the time of writing. It's headline is the blunt order "Stop defending Tim Hunt" http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/jun/23/stop-defending-tim-hunt-brian-cox-richard-dawkins?CMP=share_btn_fb
One defamatory article is bad enough, but it is rather a pattern with this newspaper, which has printed unfounded rape allegations by Emma Sulkowicz and Dylan Farrow as fact, despite the fact that both of the accused men have been exonerated by the justice system.
I am certain that on other matters, the Guardian has some wish to maintain a reputation for fact checking and accuracy, but in matters which pertain to smear campaigns by feminists, the Guardian's reliability is surely no better than Rush Limbaugh's.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.78.228.124 ( talk • contribs)
In short: Opinions may be used properly sourced and cited as opinions. Using opinion columns as "statements of fact" is improper on Wikipedia, and especially with regard to living persons. Collect ( talk) 21:38, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Opinion pieces are always opinion pieces, I have no idea what the controversy is here. If you can't tell the difference between a sourced article and Opinion blather, you should probably do more background work before editing Wikipedia. Lipsquid ( talk) 22:52, 24 December 2015 (UTC)
On the doxing article defunct gaming site Reaxxion is being used as a source, for the claim that the use of doxing is used by people associated with feminism ( diff.) I don't believe Reaxxion meets WP:IRS. It was founded in Nov 2014 and does not have a reputation of fact checking. The article being cited also makes some pretty serious claims about a living person. Is Reaxxion a reliable source? — Strongjam ( talk) 03:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
Your input is requested at Talk:Aloysius_Stepinac#RfC:_What_honorific-prefixes_should_be_included_in_the_infobox.3F. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( crack... thump) 08:50, 25 December 2015 (UTC)
I usually come across this site whenever I look for sources on sci-fi or fantasy related items. From what I can see they do have staff and they were mentioned in this book by Libraries Unlimited and this one by Routledge, both academic publishers. A further search brought up other academic coverage, where they'd been used as a RS or mentioned as a large, influential site. ( [26], [27], [28], [29])
My thought is that they should be considered usable. I figured that it'd be good to ask and get a bit of a consensus, though. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)
List_of_game_theorists has no sources and may violate original research guidelines and may not meet notability requirements. WikIan -( talk) 23:08, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
I'm currently working on expanding the page for
Abbās al-Aqqād, an Egyptian poet, journalist and literary critic from the first half of the 20th century. There is an acceptable number of sources out there, but I just found two more about which I am unsure. One is from a website called
Arab World Books and the other is from a site called
Arab Philosophers. The former boasts a diverse
Board of Trustees, while the latter has what it calls a "
Board of consultants" which looks to be the same thing.
My main issue is that the web design is a bit dated, so it doesn't look...modern, I suppose? Professional? I'm not sure how to describe it. Anyway, the information both sites contain about al-Aqqad is mostly standard bio stuff but I wanted to check about these two sources here before using them.
MezzoMezzo (
talk) 03:45, 23 December 2015 (UTC)
Página/12 is an Argentine newspaper. During the presidencies of Néstor Kirchner and Cristina Fernández de Kirchner it has become a propaganda tool for the government. Having an editorial line favourable to a certain government does not make an unreliable source: the problem is that they give priority to advance their political views, even when that means distorting information, concealing information (even with self-censorship), using slander against politicians that oppose the government, etc.
Could someone please tell me how to revive the thread "Non-peer-reviewed paper used as sole source for two paragraphs of empirical content". This is now archived in archive#200, however, editors are claiming consensus has not been reached and therefore the thread should still be active so that edits can be made. I hope this makes sense.DrChrissy (talk) 23:40, 28 December 2015 (UTC)
Given this remedy with a topic ban regarding "genetically modified plants and agricultural chemicals, broadly interpreted" it would not be wise to push to re-open an archived discussion on genetically modified fish. The TBAN probably does not apply, but the desire to continue hard-to-follow discussions on a related topic may not end well. Regardless of that, reading the opening post at the archived discussion should be sufficient to see the point. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:33, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
3G Boss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) is a TV show, apparently, though I can't find any evidence that anybody outside Walthamstow has watched it. The sourcing on the article looks appalling to me, can someone who has some knowledge of the Bengali British community please review it because right now it reads like a blow-by-blow commentary written by the producer and his mate. Guy ( Help!) 19:06, 29 December 2015 (UTC)
For some time now editors and socks have been inserting material into articles from a BMJ article, eg today "According to a genetic study in December 2012, Ramesses III and the the famed mummy "Unknown Man E" (probably Pentawer), belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1a. [1]" The article can be read at [30] and [31] which appear to be non-copyvio links. The stated objective is "To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracydescribed in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." The only mention of the haplogroup is in the paragraph which reads "Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1?); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2?). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggests a father-son relationship." Our article is about the genetic history of the demographics of Egypt. This bit of data has been placed in the section on Ancient DNA. Other studies there are described "Consequently, most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt.[9][10][11][12] One successful 1993 study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Dr. Svante Pääbo and Dr. Anna Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.[13]" In another the DNA of ancient mummies is compared to modern Egyptians. All the studies are comparative over time and or space. The Hawass study was not designed to look at these aspects of genetics and I do not think it is a reliable source for this specific use. Without interpretation the haplogroup is just raw data picked out of the study and dropped into this article. If it had been designed to look at lineage over time and/or space it would have had different results.
Every time this is inserted it's clear that it is to argue a case for the race of Egyptians. At one point it even included a statement that the haplogroup's origin was East Africa. The BMJ is without a doubt a reliable source, but the issue here is if it is a reliable source for this bit of data in this particular article. The discussion at Talk:DNA history of Egypt is going nowhere. I and another experienced editor believe it doesn't belong, but it's being argued that because a 2nd editor with about 20 edits thinks we shouldn't hide it from the world it belongs. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
Hi all,
in case you don't know, FreeCell is a single-player card game, that became popular after being included in some versions of Microsoft Windows. Now, the English Wikipedia entry about it used to contain during at least two times in the past, some relatively short sections about several automated solvers that have been written for it. However, they were removed due to being considered "non-notable" or "non-Encyclopaedic".
Right now there's only this section - /info/en/?search=FreeCell#Solver_complexity which talks about the fact that FreeCell was proven to be NP-complete.
I talked about it with a friend, and he told me I should try to get a "reliable source" news outlet/newspaper to write about such solvers (including I should add my own over at http://fc-solve.shlomifish.org/ , though the sections on the FreeCell Wikipedia entry did not exclusively cover it.).
Recently I stumbled upon this paper written by three computer scientists, then at Ben-Gurion University of the Negev:
The solver mentioned in the paper can solve 98% of the first 32,000 Microsoft FreeCell deals. However, several hobbyist solvers (= solvers that were written outside the Academia and may incorporate techniques that are less fashionable there, and that were not submitted for Academic peer review) that were written by the time the article published, have been able to solve all deals in the first MS 32,000 deals except one (#11,982), which is widely believed to be impossible, and which they fully traverse without a solution.
Finally, I should note that I've written a Perl 5/CPAN distribution to verify that the FreeCell solutions generated by my solver (and with some potential future work - other solvers) are correct, and I can run it on the output of my solver on the MS 32,000 deals on my Core i3 machine in between 3 and 4 minutes. (Verification note below).
Now my questions are:
1. Can this paper be considered a reliable, notable, and/or Encyclopaedic source that can hopefully deter and prevent future Deletionism?
2. Can I cite the fc-solve-discuss’s thread mentioning the fact that there are hobbyist solvers in question that perform better in this respect - just for "Encyclopaedic" completeness sake, because the scientific paper in question does not mention them at all.
Sorry that this post is quite long, but I wanted to present all the facts. As you can tell, I've become quite frustrated at Wikipedia deletionism and the hoops one has to overcome in order to cope with them.
Regards, User:Shlomif.
Verification note: one note is that all these programs were not verified/proved as correct by a proof verifier such as Coq , so there is a small possibility that they have insurmountable bugs. Note that I did write some automated tests for them.
Shlomif ( talk) 17:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
Could someone familiar with the use of a scientific dissertation as a source weigh in at [32]. It's not an area I'm very familiar with, and I reverted the addition pending a discussion of the suitability of the material. BMK ( talk) 04:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
Is this a genuine reliable source for stating as a fact that Susan Block is an "ordained minister in the Universal Life Church"? To me it looks more like fantasy islanding with a mix of fact and (erotic) fiction with no line separating the two. Other opinions? Collect ( talk) 22:59, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Relies very extensively on a source published by the Church or Ashmore ... "Ashmore, Lewis (1977). The Modesto messiah: The famous mail-order minister. Universal Press. ISBN 0-918950-01-5"." "Universal Press" is not an outside publisher which would be consider to produce "reliable source" material.
I find no outside sources for all of the "ordained ministers" even being aware they had been "ordained" by that group, and suggest this "source" be deprecated, the "list" deleted, and those names as "ordained ministers" be removed.
Collect (
talk) 17:57, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
The list also uses sources which say the Church "claims" people as ministers - but do not say they are true claims <g>.
Collect (
talk) 18:00, 31 December 2015 (UTC)
[33] shows one person simply reverts to keep the SPS material and the nndb.com material (see
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_26#NNDB "NNDB is not a reliable source by any stretch of the imagination. Worse than that, it was actively spammed to countless articles by people behind the site, as discussed on the WP:EL talk page several times in the past.",
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_101#NNDB " Agreeing with the above. NNDB is run by the people behind Rotten.com and has a distinctive bend towards sensationalist information (from the article on NNDB here: "one-night stands ... illnesses, phobia, addictions, drug use, criminal records") often with dubious sourcing, sometimes purely speculative. Basically not at all suitable for BLP sourcing ",
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_3#NNDB "Having looked further... there is some indication that they pull material from... Wikipedia! For us to use it as a source might result in a circular reference.... and as such, I can not call it reliable.",
Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_155#http://www.nndb.com "In a word, no. "Our standard is correctness over verifiability (the reverse of Wikipedia)".[76] Previous discussion from this noticeboard has some more info", and so on. I am not allowed to remove this material at all right now - but will someone please tell the reverter that
WP:RS does count still? Thanks.
Collect (
talk) 22:42, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
A Request for Comments has been started at Talk:List_of_ministers_of_the_Universal_Life_Church#RFC:_Reliable_sources. Me-123567-Me ( talk) 23:17, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
Is
http://taylormarshall.com/ a reliable source for statements about what the
Torah proscribes? It seems like a self-published web site or blog, by a media personality. Specifically, this blog entry -
http://taylormarshall.com/2012/01/why-did-god-order-death-of-gentile.html is being used to claim that the Torah required the Hebrews to exterminate the people of Canaan , at the
gentile article.
When Other Legends Are Forgotten (
talk) 01:27, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering. Does this count as a reliable source? Interview on Jacaranda FM about the meaning of "Drop the Pilot" Difficultly north ( talk) Simply south alt. 01:00, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
Hi all, I'd really like to get some input from the community about the perceived reliability of Pak101.com. To me, it's a no-brainer that this is another faceless, meaningless blog-style site that doesn't belong at the project, but it's also moderately cited in Pakistani entertainment articles, which causes me concern. As of this note, I see 50 uses here (although that may change since I have also floated a query about this site past the spam blacklist people, and links may start disappearing) The site looks to me to be a typical content-scraping site that may actually be mirroring Wikipedia itself. For instance, this Pak101 article with its infobox and standard Wikipedia sections like "Early life", "Career", "Personal life", etc. looks like it was scraped from Wikipedia. This March 2010 version of the Noor Bukhari article introduces the phrase "She left the film industry due to family issues" which we also find verbatim at the Pak101 article. And the earliest archive of the Pak101 Noor Bukhari article is from April 2013. That doesn't definitively prove that Pak101 scraped Wikipedia, but it may be consistent. Contrarily, we might notice an article at Pak101 like this, which doesn't say too much, but doesn't quite mirror Uroosa Qureshi. So it's possible that Pak101.com scraped Wikipedia once upon a time, but lately has stopped doing that. But there is also a real concern that casual editors might be using old Pak101 Wikipedia scrapes as references, thus creating a problematic self-referencing feedback loop.
Anyhow, the real question is whether or not they are a reliable published source with an established reputation for fact-checking, and I don't see any indication that this is the case. There is no About us page from which we could glean such information. From one of its earliest archives it looks like it was intended as a discussion forum and general whimsy site, not as a reliable news source or entertainment publication. The articles aren't attributed to specific writers. It's also unclear who owns the site, and so forth. I'm going to invite members of Wikipedia talk:Notice board for Pakistan-related topics to this discussion. Thanks all, Cyphoidbomb ( talk) 00:34, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
We have an disagreement on the
Gentile page that is not resolving between the editors, pertaining to RS. The most recent edit by
user:When Other Legends Are Forgotten uses the 1905
Jewish Encyclopedia as an RS, based on the Torah as an RS, to state in the Encyclopedia's voice that the Canaanites engaged in idolatry. The most recent edit is here
[36]. This wording has gone back and forth over the last few days. My position (argued on the
talk page) is that JE is an RS on the content of the Torah/Bible, but not on the history or practices of Gentiles, and that the wording should reflect that position (as was intended by the previous version). Hoping someone will step in on this issue.
Grammar'sLittleHelper (
talk) 05:04, 3 January 2016 (UTC)
Euromaidan Press is used as an RS in a number of articles, including 2014–15 Russian military intervention in Ukraine, Media portrayal of the Ukrainian crisis, and others. However, it actually is an extremist website, which published a number of editorials in support of the Right Sector and the Azov battalion (( [37], [38]), [39]), as well as calls to "kill... close relatives of the members of Putin regime", "shell Belgorod" and "disperse uranium to Russia" (i. e. actually propagandizing terrorism). Given all of this, I'm asking to estimate the legitimacy of using it as an RS. -- Buzz105 ( talk) 12:57, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
[40] was ungraciously restored by an editor who templates me as a near-vandal <g> for removing what is clearly self-published stuff from the church's own website.
Is " http://www.ulchq.com/%7Ctitle=Welcome to the official website for Universal Life Church" a reliable source to comprise entire swaths of the article thereon?
The following was also restored:
Only problem is that the church was legally ruled not to be tax-exempt and paid $1.5 million in back taxes in 2000.
And to add insult to injury - the editor then removed
Which appears to be absolutely RS-sourced in my opinion -- which looks alas more like a ULC desired result than a Wikipedia NPOV RS result.
Collect (
talk) 22:12, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
References
I had cited this article as a source regarding the closure of Bio (Australian TV channel) on the FYI (U.S. TV channel) article (specifically this section), that Bio channel in Australia had indeed closed.
Another Wikipedia user questioned the validity of using the website [45] as a source because the website "describes itself as a blog", the site's about page describes itself as "the personal blog of Commentator, David Knox" and per WP:BLOGS the website isn't "attached to a news website, which there for indicates that per WP:BLOGS it is not to be used".
My counter argument is that also per WP:BLOGS, the quote ends "..are largely not acceptable as sources", indicating there are exceptions. Additionally, it continues "self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications". Accepting the website describes itself as a blog, I don't think it is an unreliable source. In the afforementioned about page of the website, it describes the author David Knox's career and qualifications, and both he and the website are quoted in mainstream media articles, for example: in News Corp and Sydney Morning Herald. Mr Knox also holds a regular radio position as a television commentator with the ABC and makes comment in media industry publications.
While there are opinion pieces on the website, they are minimal and most content in news based from industry sources, press releases, etc. I don't think they are outlandish claims or self reporting that would make it an unreliable source for Wikipedia.
I should also state that the source is still used in the FYI article, as the editor decided to allow it, but still takes issue with it in a talk page discussion. I would also note TV Tonight is widely quoted across Wikipedia as a source, including by myself on other articles, however note that isn't a reason to keep or exclude it alone.
Also uses a link from the "Universal Life Church" as a source that a specific person is an "ordained minister" of that church. [46] shows the re-use of the ULC "facts" with the comment that claims by an organization are automatically "perfectly acceptable". (Again, a link to an organization's website to support claim about THE SAME ORGANIZATION is a perfectly acceptable primary source) Thanks. Collect ( talk) 14:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I posted previously asking for input about whether the McKinsey Global Institute is a reliable source, but the only response was from an editor that has been following me around after an editing dispute, so I was hoping to get more input. The McKinsey Global Institute publishes peer-reviewed reports on business and economics topics. Their reports are often cited/covered in publications like TIME and The Wall Street Journal. I would consider it similar to an industry analyst firm, where the main thrust of their reports are often covered in the media, but the reports themselves have extensive data about things like market-sizes, demographics within a profession, main imports/exports of a country, etc. that could be useful to an encyclopedia if the reports are considered reliable. McKinsey is not affiliated with the topics it covers (not primary) and the reports are not sponsored by any particular interest (advocacy); it's the research arm of McKinsey, a management consultancy.
I was considering working with them in my usual COI role for self-citation COI, and am trying to get feedback on what is appropriate. In my opinion it is actually much more reliable than the mainstream sources we see more routinely, but I would need to be cautious to avoid weight and un-encyclopedic issue with some of the subject-matter. Open to hearing potentially different opinions from polite, thoughtful, neutral editors and appreciate your time in advance. David King, Ethical Wiki ( Talk) 07:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
Used to support claims that specific notable persons were "ordained ministers of the Universal Life Church".
http://afinalcurtaincall.blogspot.ca/2015/09/cyd-charisse-1922-2008.html
http://www.myspace.com/lop_magazine/blog/208179804
http://debaclypsenow.blogspot.com/2006/07/im-joiner.html
http://ca.eonline.com/uberblog/b189118_jason_segel_pronounces_couple_husband.html
http://www.blokesontheblog.co.uk/hunter-s-thompson-and-the-universal-life-church
http://www.creativeminorityreport.com/2010/11/tony-danza-shut-up-about-god-already.htm
http://www.wonderwall.com/celebrity/where-are-they-now-girl-groups-23410.gallery?photoId=102845
http://law.jrank.org/pages/3595/John-Wayne-Lorena-Bobbitt-Trials-1993-1994-John-Bobbitt-s-Troubles-Continue.html (self-identified as a "free encyclopedia" by the way)
Which of these meet the requirements of WP:RS please? Thanks. Collect ( talk) 20:56, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
On the Adland article, user:Grayfell's removal of the following text from the Adland article's Reviews section:
The reason given was "The Business.com bit is clickbait, not journalism. This is just a puff-piece, and is only presented as the blogger's personal opinion, not a representation of the entire site". I checked the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and found nothing about Business.com one way or another. It does not seem to be clickbait to me, but I recognize that that is a matter of opinion. As for a "the blogger's personal opinion", again, this is a review, and as such is going to be personal opinion. If the objection is that writer is a blogger, and thus not a reliable source, WP:NEWSBLOG states that "These may be acceptable sources if the writers are professionals, but use them with caution because the blog may not be subject to the news organization's normal fact-checking process."
Grayfell's point is not without merit; I am not restoring this sentence, but instead, I'm submitting Business.com (and the specific reference) to see what the consensus here is. Is Business.com "clickbait"? Does the specific Business.com article cited above fall under those listed as reliable sources under WP:NEWSBLOG? Is Business.com known to exercise sufficient editorial control over their writers/bloggers such that stating "Business.com listed Adland as..." is appropriate?
Thanks for your help with this. Carl Henderson ( talk) 04:14, 2 January 2016 (UTC)
References
I'm somewhat involved with the AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barack Obama and the Enemies Within. So far there are only two sources on the article: one from the New American and one from Glenn Beck. The NA source isn't usable since there's a very clear consensus that the NA can only be used to back up information about the John Birch Society and not establish notability.
The Beck one is a bit more unclear. Sourcing from Beck has occasionally been problematic because of some of the claims he's made via his shows and other media. This author and the book appears to have been featured on his book show, but I don't know if this would be the type of thing that we could use as a source to establish notability. I haven't watched the source yet, so I don't know how in-depth it goes or if the author was interviewed about his book or about other material, but I figured that there does need to be a discussion about whether or not material by Beck could be used as a RS, since I don't really see where this has truly been discussed before. (It could be after viewing the video that it was only mentioned briefly in relation to something else, which has happened in a related Loudon article, where the book was mentioned offhand in relation to a larger topic. My main concern here is whether or not Beck is a RS.) Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:29, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
I want to write an article about a popular and original book namely Kitab Al Irshad. when i searched the secondary sources i found out that this site http://islamichouseofwisdom.com/al-serat-journal-archives/ , there i could find good sources and information about shia scholars and their books. i want to know that this site and archive could be considered as valid in wikipedia?-- m,sharaf ( talk) 12:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
xplorer² is at AFD, and it looks like there are some sources in Google News. One of the better(-looking) ones is this. It's not in the article yet, but it looks like it would be used to support a statement like:
xplorer2 contains dockable panes, dual bookmanks, and a shell context menu.
.
Does anyone have more info? Discuss-Dubious ( t/ c) 22:26, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
I'm sure everyone knows of the net_gross field in the infobox for BLP articles. Now one user I have been encountering, Special:Contributions/Tobydrew8, has been adding a source called Richest.com, especially this url, to update the net worth of the Lady Gaga article. I have reverted it thrice now since I believe this is not even a remotely reliable source, and fails accountability or any credibility. I have invited the editor also, since it seems he/she kind of pays no attention to any warnings or any explanation and is refusing to refrain from adding this url. So need input from the community here on this website and its credibility. — Indian:BIO [ ChitChat ] 10:12, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
They are being used, as raw data, at Michael Efroimsky. I didn't think we normally include these, although perhaps as I can't find anything discussing him they might be intended to show notability. Doug Weller talk 14:45, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
There are a number of military history/biography articles that list sources either in Further reading or in References that are not used for citations. I'm seeking input on whether they should be kept or removed.
Author: Gordon Williamson
Article: Herbert Otto Gille
Book in question:
Williamson is considered an "admirer" of Waffen-SS, who "sought to restore [its] tarnished reputation in the West and reiterate its superb fighting qualities by letting the veterans tell their stories. The results are predictably positive."
[1]. Cited to:
MacKenzie, S.P. (2014).
Revolutionary Armies in the Modern Era: A Revisionist Approach. Routledge.
ISBN
978-0415867771. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Author: Karl Alman, aka Franz Kurowski
Articles: Adelbert Schulz; Hans-Detloff von Cossel; Hermann Bix; Hermann Hoth
Books in question:
Karl Alman is a pseudonym of Franz Kurowski; the translated title of the 1st book is Panzers: The dramatic history of German armored forces and their brave soldiers.
In their work The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture, historians Smelser and Davies characterize Kurowski as a leading "guru" (gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army and, in particular, the Waffen-SS"). Franz Kurowski, a veteran of the Eastern front, saw his two major works released in the U.S. in 1992 (Panzer Aces and 1994 (Infantry Aces). Smelser & Davis write: [2]
Kurowski, like all true gurus, ignores the charges of serious misdeeds leveled against the German military and provides a heroic context for the men he describes in his many works.... [He] gives the readers an almost heroic version of the German soldier, guiltless of any war crimes, actually incapable of such behavior... Sacrifice and humility are his hallmarks. Their actions win them medals, badges and promotions, yet they remain indifferent to these awards.
Kurowski's accounts are "laudatory texts that cast the German soldier in an extraordinarily favorable light", they conclude. [3]
Also see: Kurowski on De Wikipedia
(Citations are from Smelser, Ronald; Davies, Edward J. (2008).
The myth of the Eastern Front: the Nazi-Soviet war in American popular culture. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ISBN
9780521833653. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help))
Author: Günther Fraschka
Article: Herbert Otto Gille
Book in question:
I don't have a secondary source for Knights of the Reich but I believe some original research is permitted when evaluating sources for inclusion. Title speaks for itself (IMO), but here's an Amazon review:
That Gunther Fraschka is a hero worshipper, not a biographer and certainly not a scholar, is painfully evident in this collection of sketches purporting to commemorate the deeds of Hitler's greatest heroes. Worse, his writing style is atrocious (or Johnston's translation is), consisting of prose more appropriate to a high-school essay than a serious study of the essence of heroism.
Author: Florian Berger
Article: Hermann Hoth
Book in question:
I don't have access to the book, but here's a sample of his writing in Face of Courage, The: The 98 Men Who Received the Knight's Cross and the Close-Combat Clasp in Gold: link. The tone and the narrative does not sound like that of an objective, reputable historian.
References
I therefore question the inclusion of the works by these authors in the bibliography as biased and not written by reputable historians.
More, they serve no purpose in the articles as they are not used for citations.
Per WP:MILMOS:
Policy requires that articles reference only reliable sources; however, this is a minimal condition, rather than a final goal. With the exception of certain recent topics that have not yet become the subject of extensive secondary analysis, and for which a lower standard may be temporarily permitted, articles on military history should aim to be based primarily on published secondary works by reputable historians. (Emphasis mine)
I earlier had two separate discussions on this topic on other (separate) articles, where the issue was resolved quickly. Here are the discussions in question:
Disagreements arose as to whether keep the books I listed (and similar) in several other articles (above), so I'm seeking further input in this matter. K.e.coffman ( talk) 20:47, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
Input would be appreciated on an RfC on the inclusion of Overtime Politics polls here. 108.2.58.56 ( talk) 15:19, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Original Diff/Edit [49] "The term refers to the fact that, 'Any person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms under Federal law.'"
Most recent Diff/Edit [50] "The term refers to the viewpoint that there is an inadequacy in federal law, under which '[a]ny person may sell a firearm to an unlicensed resident of the State where he resides as long as he does not know or have reasonable cause to believe the person is prohibited from receiving or possessing firearms'."
My concern is that the ATF source [51] isn't specifically referencing, nor does it mention, GSL, and the "ATF top ten FAQ" feels a bit inappropriate in it's capacity as an RS in this context for the lead in this article. Darknipples ( talk) 01:38, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
In addition, the original source (which was removed/excluded) [52] contains this reference, originally used in the GSL article lead. "The perceived gap in the law is the source of a commonly used, albeit somewhat flawed term — “the gun-show loophole.” Darknipples ( talk) 01:50, 7 January 2016 (UTC)
This is on the wrong board. This is a content dispute not a question of reliability. J8079s ( talk) 18:01, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
Can Discogs be used for album credits, track length ect on an albums page as a RS? Teddy2Gloves (talk) (contribs) 22:31, 5 January 2016 (UTC)
I have started a RFC to discuss the proliferation of personal blogs and fansites in cuesport articles, usually to source sporting statistics. The RFC isn't gaining much traction so I am bringing it to the attention of this noticeboard. The RFC is at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Snooker#RfC: Does the use of self-published sources in snooker articles violate BLPSPS and SPS?. A huge number of articles are affected (i.e. hundreds) so it would be great if we could get some community input to settle this for once and for all i.e. when does a good blog become a "reliable source"? Does BLPSPS still apply to sport stats and so forth? Betty Logan ( talk) 07:47, 11 January 2016 (UTC)
Is this entry in the 'Communities Directory' by the Fellowship for Intentional Community a reliable source for the subject Manitonquat, which is a BLP currently throwing up a number of interesting reliable source questions? It's a wiki, but there's a solid-looking org behind it. It's currently the subject of a kickstarter. The site does do a good job of linking to both positive and negative materials about the subject. Thoughts? Stuartyeates ( talk) 00:41, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
An editor is adding dubious record chart information to song articles citing a web site bullfrogspond.com (see example diff). The chart information being added to Wikipedia is variously described as "Billboard year-end chart" or "Whitburn rankings". The web site in question appears to be a hobbyist web site created by an "avid music lover" who "threw this site together just for a few friends to use." This is obviously the creator's own rankings as they don't match the actual Billboard year-end charts, nor do they appear in Whitburn's books. It also appears this web site represents a copyright violation as it contains copyrighted research from Billboard (magazine) or Joel Whitburn, which he apparently has run afoul with. How can this be considered a reliable source? Piriczki ( talk) 14:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
I brought this up duing the holidays, bad timing. Resurrecting it now. Doug Weller talk 15:25, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
For some time now editors and socks have been inserting material into articles from a BMJ article, eg today "According to a genetic study in December 2012, Ramesses III and the the famed mummy "Unknown Man E" (probably Pentawer), belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup E1b1a. [1]" The article can be read at [53] and [54] which appear to be non-copyvio links. The stated objective is "To investigate the true character of the harem conspiracydescribed in the Judicial Papyrus of Turin and determine whether Ramesses III was indeed killed." The only mention of the haplogroup is in the paragraph which reads "Genetic kinship analyses revealed identical haplotypes in both mummies (table 1?); using the Whit Athey’s haplogroup predictor, we determined the Y chromosomal haplogroup E1b1a. The testing of polymorphic autosomal microsatellite loci provided similar results in at least one allele of each marker (table 2?). Although the mummy of Ramesses III’s wife Tiy was not available for testing, the identical Y chromosomal DNA and autosomal half allele sharing of the two male mummies strongly suggests a father-son relationship." Our article is about the genetic history of the demographics of Egypt. This bit of data has been placed in the section on Ancient DNA. Other studies there are described "Consequently, most DNA studies have been carried out on modern Egyptian populations with the intent of learning about the influences of historical migrations on the population of Egypt.[9][10][11][12] One successful 1993 study was performed on ancient mummies of the 12th Dynasty, by Dr. Svante Pääbo and Dr. Anna Di Rienzo, which identified multiple lines of descent, some of which originated in Sub-Saharan Africa.[13]" In another the DNA of ancient mummies is compared to modern Egyptians. All the studies are comparative over time and or space. The Hawass study was not designed to look at these aspects of genetics and I do not think it is a reliable source for this specific use. Without interpretation the haplogroup is just raw data picked out of the study and dropped into this article. If it had been designed to look at lineage over time and/or space it would have had different results.
Every time this is inserted it's clear that it is to argue a case for the race of Egyptians. At one point it even included a statement that the haplogroup's origin was East Africa. The BMJ is without a doubt a reliable source, but the issue here is if it is a reliable source for this bit of data in this particular article. The discussion at Talk:DNA history of Egypt is going nowhere. I and another experienced editor believe it doesn't belong, but it's being argued that because a 2nd editor with about 20 edits thinks we shouldn't hide it from the world it belongs. Doug Weller talk 15:02, 30 December 2015 (UTC)
References
I'm helping a new editor, Kirk Leonard, who is writing his first article about an early settler in Massachusetts ( Draft:Isaac Stearns). He's wanting to include a paragraph about notable descendants, and is sourcing that paragraph, in part, to this website. I tend to be wary of using genealogy websites as sources in Wikipedia, as a lot of them rely on user-generated content. I've not heard of this one before. They have this disclaimer on some (but not all) pages:
Please note: The ancestor reports on this website have been compiled from thousands of different sources, many over 100 years old. These sources are attached to each ancestor so that you can personally judge their reliability. As with any good genealogical research, if you discover a link to your own family tree, consider it a starting point for further research. It is always preferable to locate primary records where possible. FamousKin.com cannot and does not guarantee the accuracy and reliability of these sources.
So, is this website a reliable source for listing notable descendants of this early settler? ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:00, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
OK. Thanks for the help everybody. I'll remove that source as unreliable. Kirk Leonard ( talk) 20:20, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
http://www.toptenz.net/10-abandoned-malls-around-world-change-title.php
I would like to create an article for the Greeley Mall in Greeley, Colo. Is this a reliable source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Puppy9000 ( talk • contribs) 20:03, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
What do you folks think of High Country News? Disclaimer - I did add some glowing praise to that article before posting here Earlier today, Somedifferentstuff ( talk · contribs) decided to challenge a large edit I made, and in the edit summary he questioned the RS quality of that source. To be clear, the ping to SomeDifferentstuff is my first communication about this to him/her, and we're not at loggerheads. I just thought this would be a reasonable place to involve additional eds in the discussion.
Comments on this source anyone? NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 00:48, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Reliable for coverage regarding western Colorado only. [57]. Anything beyond that area will e covered by national news (or outside western Colorado local news) if it's notable. -- DHeyward ( talk) 08:07, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Through in-depth reporting, High Country News covers the American West's public lands, water, natural resources, grazing, wilderness, wildlife, logging, politics, communities, growth and other issues now changing the face of the West. From Alaska and the Northern Rockies to the desert Southwest, from the Great Plains to the West Coast, High Country News’ coverage spans 12 Western states and is the leading source for regional environmental news, analysis and commentary -- an essential resource for those who care about this region.NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 08:10, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Noting the usual caveat - the source includes opinion and commentary - and, as ever, opinions should be cited and sourced as opinion, and not stated as fact in Wikipedia's voice. And this is true of every source pretty much across the board - opinions are not "facts." Collect ( talk) 17:23, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Please see ongoing discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Biographies_of_living_persons#Clarification_question_on_the_policy which is entirely relevant to this noticeboard. -- ℕ ℱ 00:10, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There is some disagreement over at Men Going Their Own Way (on talk page at 1 and 2) about the use of freiewelt.net as a source. Below is the statement and reference in question. Is this source a reliable source for this statement? (Note: I don't have any stake in this, I'm just sick of the bickering about it)
The German periodical Freie Welt compared MGTOW to the trend of Herbivore men in Japan and the overall decline of American men choosing to become married as described in Helen Smith's book, Men on Strike. [1]
References
Das Phänomen MGTOW lässt sich in Europa und der gesamten englischsprachigen Welt beobachten. Das japanische bzw. ostasiatische Pendant dazu sind die „Herbivore Men". In Japan trägt dieser Trend erheblich zum Bevölkerungsschwund bei.... Eine neues Buch zu diesem Thema ist von der US-amerikanischen Psychologin Dr. Helen Smith unter dem Titel „Men On Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – And Why It Matters" (Encounter Books: New York 2013) erschienen.
EvergreenFir (talk) Please {{ re}} 09:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)
@ Permstrump: I'm in agreement now that Freie Welt a biased source, so it would seem the only disagreement is how contentious it is to compare MGTOW to herbivore men. Just going from the first sentence in the Wikipedia article on herbivore men (e.g. they are "...men who have no interest in getting married or finding a girlfriend") in that regard both groups are virtually identical. On the other hand, I can see a few subtle differences. For example some self-published MGTOW sources discuss having short-term relationships (e.g. which would entail finding a girlfriend) and it could be argued that the phenomenon of herbivore men is more emergent based on socioeconomic changes (the same could be said about the decreasing trend in marriage in America) where as MGTOW is more deliberate. That being said, there are still obvious similarities between them. Would you still have an objection to these comparisons if the similarities and differences where explained in a less ambiguous way? - Scarpy ( talk) 15:45, 12 January 2016 (UTC)
There has been some other discussion of this here: Talk:Men_Going_Their_Own_Way#Edits_in_the_spirit_of_compromised_offered_on_RSN. - Scarpy ( talk) 18:50, 14 January 2016 (UTC)
There's been a dispute going on in the article White savior narrative in film which revolvers around the inclusion of the film 12 Years a Slave. This dispute involves myself, 70.190.188.48, Erik, and Betty Logan. We've taken this to WP:DRN, where it was more or less agreed that this was the right venue to take the dispute after it turned out that the dispute revolved mainly around the sources. The sources in question are presented here (see agreement on sources [58], [59]) and a RfC is humbly requested, as per [60]. Apologies if anything is unclear.
Sources in question
|
---|
|
Dschslava ( talk) 00:16, 13 January 2016 (UTC)
Looking at the entirely of the sources listed above, I see no reason to exclude this film from that article. Gamaliel ( talk) 17:32, 15 January 2016 (UTC)