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 200 | ← | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 | Archive 206 | → | Archive 210 |
"United States Social Security Death Index," database, FamilySearch ( https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JGGT-JZQ : accessed 17 February 2016), Henry Gibson, 14 Sep 2009; citing U.S. Social Security Administration, Death Master File, database (Alexandria, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, ongoing
Is proffered as a reliable source for the particular claim that " Henry Gibson" was the legal name in United States Social Security records of a person who died on 14 Sep 2009, born 21 Sep 1935, with a residence in Malibu. One editor says this is not a ".gov" address and thus can not be the SSA.
I suggest it is the SSA database clearly being used, and that the editor is using a weak cavil at best. Discussion at Talk:Henry_Gibson#name_per_Social_Security_System and note that the land records for Malibu indicate the person was Henry Gibson as well. The dates on this record precisely match those for Henry Gibson, the place of residence matches Henry Gibson and, more to the point, no record for James Bateman matching any known facts whatsoever about the person Henry Gibson in that database. I am getting tired of an editor warring that his only "real name" is James Bateman. Pinging EauZenCashHaveIt, Mlpearc.., Thanks. Collect ( talk) 13:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry GLH, but you are wrong here. We certainly can use primary government records, provided that they are accessible by the general public (which does not mean easily accessible). Primary sources are explicitly allowed by WP:NOR... We simply must use them with caution. The question is... Has anyone actually confirmed what the government records say? Blueboar ( talk) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The records of the US Social Security Administration would not be ambiguous, as there is a unique identifying number attached. Blueboar ( talk) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
1. Sources: Times of Israel, Guardian 1, DW, Guardian 2, Maz, RTE.
2. Article: Pegida.
3. Content: Lead sentence of the Pegida article.
Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West ( German: Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a far right wing neo-nazi movement...
My take on it: except for the Maz article, none of the sources refer to Pegida as "neo-nazi". While many of them discuss neo-nazis at Pegida events (which obviously should be covered in the Wikipedia article), none of them refer to Pegida itself as neo-nazi.
The Maz article is an interview with an activist for an anti-right wing group, and really isn't suitable at all for stating these things in Wikipedia's voice.
I would also argue that the sources don't even support the "far right" label - of these sources, only The Guardian appears to use this label. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 01:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The description of the AFD as (far) right-wing as in right of the center right fairly common in the German press and a common assessment by scholars in sociology and politics (in interviews). I understand the skepticism towards quick superficial labeling in the press. Maybe a better a approach is having the lead without any such label and moving that information in separate section dealing with the political placement of the movement, where the assessments of reputable news publications can be given but possible augmented by German publications of which there are plenty and more important scholarly sources (which do exist in German at least). Note that the German article uses currently "right wing populist" ("Rechtpopulismus") as label and it has a section with scholarly assessments, that could be utilized for the English article.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources appear to support "right-wing anti-Islamization group" but the "neo-Nazi" epithet appears to be in the nature of "editorial opinion" rather than a statement of fact. The pejorative term is "contentious" thus the fact one source states it as an opinion is insufficient for Wikipedia to state it as a fact.
Collect (
talk) 14:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Pegida is routinely described as "far-right" and as including neo-Nazis in their ranks, a hallmark of far-right politics. Based on reviewing what sources write I think you should also describe the group as "xenophobic," since every other source uses this term without qualification.
The German establishment Deutsche Welle writes that Pegida is one of a number of "far-right movements" throughout Europe. [8] They also write, "Germany's well-organized neo-Nazi scene is merging with the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement... an integral part of the group's weekly marches... appear to be tolerated by organizers." [9]
Germany's flagship magazine news source Der Spiegel describes Pegida as "a xenophobic grassroots movement," whose growth is fueled by hate and threatens to make far-right politics mainstream. Pegida has close ties with Björn Höcke, Götz Kubitschek, Jürgen Elsässer, and Michael Stürzenberger. The article describes debate among German officials about whether Pegida is "far-right," but even the Saxon official who is more sympathetic to Pegida describes it as a "populist far-right movement." [10], [11], [12]
The International Business Times describes "regular marches by the far-right group Pegida," [13] and labels them "far-right." [14]. So does MSN. [15]
The Guardian describes Pegida as "a far-right group." [16], [17] The Telegraph and many in the German political establishment describe Pegida as a part of the "far-right." [18] So does Public Radio International. [19]
The Independent describes Pegida as a "xenophobic group," that has surprised main parties by including "known neo-Nazis and far-right hooligans" in addition to middle and lower class Germans worried about immigration. [20] The BBC writes that Pegida "has attracted a variety of right-wing and far-right groups", some ordinary citizens worried about Islam, far-right hooligans, and praise from neo-Nazi groups. [21] Newsweek writes that Pegida is "a far-right German group whose name is an acronym for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West." [22]
The French press regularly describe either Pegida or their supporters as extreme right. [23], [24], [25], [26]
Anyone who thinks that Pegida isn't far-right doesn't know what the term means and isn't reading the news. - Darouet ( talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not about what the sources already cited say. It's about what reliable sources say. Googling for news articles with the terms "Pegida" and "neo-Nazi" brought up some interesting results. Deutsche Welle explicitly contrasts the group with the "neo-Nazi scene" (not saying they are not similar, just saying they are two distinct entities). The Times of Israel explicitly calls the group's members neo-Nazis. Breitbart.com says they totally aren't neo-Nazis and it's only pinko commie liberals who confuse the two, which makes me really think that there are probably a very large number of more reliable sources that call the group a neo-Nazi group. The Irish Independent refers to them as "the neo-Nazi movement". Exactly how many reliable sources do we need to find? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
BLP and WEIGHT concerns about the subject himself aside, this edit looks more like personal opinion than any objective measure of whether a source is generally reliable and should be cited in a Wikipedia article. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Would this website be reliable for anime/manga related content? The website is in Chinese so I would need someone fluent in the language to check on this one. Here is the page in question [29]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering can anyone guide me how to source a content from a valid email response? For the song " Living for Love", the Australian chart regulatory board, ARIA, replied to an inquiry email with the chart peak position. So how can I source it in the article? — IB [ Poke ] 09:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Where do the sort of sites which essentially allow "letters to the editor" to be published fit on Wiki's spectrum of "reliability?"
I'm thinking about the online version of "Counterpunch", which posts unsolicited, uncompensated articles, with a degree of editorial oversight. Some of the stuff, leaving aside questions of POV, is pretty good, some not so much.
Would writing for this sort of website a couple of times qualify someone as a "journalist" by wikiish standards? Anmccaff ( talk) 21:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Guys, we have problem here [30], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.
Guys, we have problem here [31], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.
I didn't get back to the recent discussion Roger Tolces before it was archived. I have been in email contact with him. He confirms what is popularly believed, that he coined the term. He says he called it that in 1973 and was at the time testing people for electronic implants. He has a very detailed definition of what he means by the term on his website, which does coincide with popular use. What else would be needed to put both in the article? To me it seems it should be the starting point, if he was the start of it, no matter how anyone sees the issue. Jed Stuart ( talk) 00:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
A recent blog post from Edzard Ernst notes that a "journal" is soliciting for papers supporting cancer quackery. This is the same journal the Burzynski Clinic used to publish some of its bogus trials of "antineoplastons" - it is open access and very likely predatory. Journal of Cancer Therapy is clearly not a RS, and it's likely that others from the same publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, are equally problematic. There are over 250 links, we should check these carefully I think. Guy ( Help!) 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I have a question that arose from an Afd discussion I have been having with a very experienced editor. The question is: Is being awarded a Guinness World Record a significant award? Thank you. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Background: Popcorn Time is a program/website/repository that was shut down by the MPAA. Subsequently, various more or less "legitimate" forks were released, some of them with allegations of containing malware (I mention it just to show it's best to be careful before legitimizing any of these).
Now, popcorntime.sh has appeared, and it stands out because some of the original project's resources (site, repositories and even the Twitter account) now direct to it. This is being used by some editors at Talk:Popcorn Time#popcorntime.sh to justify treating this new website as the "official successor" of the original popcorntime.io.
However, some sources were presented by one of these very editors that seem to strongly contradict this claim:
"nobody seems to know who is behind the updated app"and that
"the original team [...] claimed to have nothing to do with the revived app"and even that
"It’s entirely possible (though unlikely) that the MPAA could be trying to use the app as a honeypot to track movie pirates."
"the official GitHub repository was updated with a new working version and now points to PopcornTime.sh as the new home, as does the official Twitter account", but without affirming that this means the new site is official. In addition, it notes that
"The code used to update the old application [...] uses four nameservers [...] which are all controlled and owned by the MPAA"
(emphasis mine)
The other editors seem to argue that because the sources do not rule out it may be official, it might be treated as official: they say "Not Knowing who is behind the new website do not say it is not official"
and "Torrentfreak not knowing who the developers are (since they chose to stay anon) doesn't imply a negative, either. "Evidence of absence" and all that stuff."
.
Teemome in particular also states "Since other third party references (separate from the new website) state that it is the successor (the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc), then we can use those as a reference and consider it true."
as if implying that websites and accounts previously run by project members are "third-party references".
So I have some questions:
LjL ( talk) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"no one is really able to say absolutely definitively which forks are totally trustworthy and which ones aren’t, since everyone is keen to hide their identities and remain unaccountable"and that
"it’s no longer possible to publicly point to a set of trustworthy developers and use their credentials to give credibility to a project", which runs directly contrary to the concept of naming an official successor.
"the project still uses private keys that match the original team’s for distribution". Because the application updates are signed, so due to cryptographic encryption, only the people working on the original project can push out this update, I'm afraid that makes very little sense, because if the MPAA seized these people's assets, then it's perfectly plausible that they seized their private keys as well, and encryption doesn't magically stop that. LjL ( talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
"The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return""and
"we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation""and
"Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)".
"The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return""← "most closely linked" doesn't mean "official successor"
"we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation""← yes, the people behind the reincarnation, which may or may not be the same people who were behind the original thing
"Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)"← this refers to the reincarnation's team (see the paragraph that comes before this one), and it's not saying it's the same team as the original one
"Most of our old teammates have left the ship to focus on a new technology", so clearly it's not the exact same team and yet successors can be determined.
"None of them could be labelled "official successors", because they weren't necessarily run by the same people."which implies that successors can only be considered such, if it's run by the same people. That's not the case, however; this has already happened before in August 2015: https://torrentfreak.com/original-popcorn-time-team-backs-popular-fork-150812/ Where some members of the old project declared the .io fork the "official" successor to the 2014 Argentine Popcorntime. The old team clearly has the right to do this, as history has shown, so even though we don't know which programmers are working on the new project doesn't affect the succession status. Software projects hardly need to have the same people working on it for it to be considered successors, that shouldn't be considered a requirement.
"Popcorntime.io, probably the most popular iteration of slippery movie piracy app Popcorn Time, is back — sort of. Earlier this week, part of the team apparently behind popcorntime.io announced a comeback"source http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online This is about as clearly stated for a secondary reference source as you can get. Is there any more discussion needed? Teemome ( talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
This site is already considered to be unreliable on Wikipedia, but I thought that it would be a good idea to have an official RS/N thread to refer to when it comes to this site. There was mention of this in this thread, but an overall thread about the site would be helpful for future reference.
Goodreads is a social media/networking site that allows users to post reviews of work. Users can also edit entries on books and submit updates to material or even create new entries entirely, which makes it popular with self-published and indie authors whose work might not be collected in libraries and end up in WorldCat. While the site says that only "librarians" can edit entries, it really isn't difficult to become one. I used to visit the site and became a librarian after a fairly short period of time.
An example of why the site can't be seen as reliable even for primary details would be things like Scott Sigler's book Nocturnal, where two versions of the book exist - a podcast "rough draft" and the final version, which was released in print. The two works share some basic similarities with the plot (detective discovers that he's part of a race of monsters that prey on San Fran), but they're otherwise completely different stories with some fairly major changes that would make any reviews for one version irrelevant to the other. Various librarians repeatedly merged the two together thinking that they were essentially the same thing, which led to user confusion with reviews and it eventually became necessary for some of the site's mods to fix the mistake. Material like rumors and hoaxes have also made its way into records as well, mostly because of good intentioned people believing the material to be fact. It's usually fixed, but this makes the website similar to Wikipedia in terms of reliability - you can't use Wikipedia to back up claims in anything except the most rare situations.
Now I am aware that there are places that list Goodreads, mostly because people add it thinking that it's the equivalent of WorldCat or even Google Books. There are some of us that have made a concentrated effort to remove the links as we see them, but there's always someone trying to add it for various details, ranging from basic information to review claims. I'd like to have some sort of basic thread to pull back on when trying to explain that it's not reliable because it's ultimately a self-published source. Amazon did buy the site, but they did not take away users' ability to edit data, so it's still a SPS at best because of its social media site nature. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Rebuttal
|
---|
|
I have been using LCCN entries for people as sources for their birthdates for a little while now, assuming it was reliable. But now, when I was looking up Chuck Cleaver's entry on there [34] to see if his birthdate was listed there, I noticed that one phrase, sourced to "Wikipedia website", appears in his LCCN entry, leading me to suspect that LCCN entries are not reliable sources, at least not for BLPs. I would like to know what others think. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't quite get a handle on the nature of the nippon.com website. It clearly isn't a conventional news site nor is it merely a blog as it has an editorial board. [1] The website does not appear to be an online extension of a dead tree magazine or journal either.
The page/article/editorial (what is it?) that I'm using as a source [2] is written by an apparently reputable academic, so it's reliability per se seems established. I'm trying to figure out how to properly cite it - none of "cite news/editorial/blog" appear to me to be a comfortable fit. Help! Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Was the character created for the TV show and loosely based on an obscure one-off comic villain, or created for the comic and renamed/popularized by the TV show?
The line between these two is extremely blurry, there is a dispute between me and User:Darkknight2149 over how our article should be worded on this point. A problem is that the majority of sources that discuss the problem in detail can be interpreted either way. No "full history" of the character can completely neglect either the fact that a similar character first appeared in the comics in 1959 or the fact that said character was essentially a one-off until the TV show renamed and popularized him. Thus, Darkknight2149 and I have interpreted this source differently. A lot of sources are also written "semi-in-universe": within the universe of the comics "Mr. Zero" and "Mr. Freeze" were later determined to be the same person. So a lot of sources simply say "the character first appeared in 1959". It is my view that sources saying the character first appeared in 1959 cannot be used for the claim that the character was not created for the TV show and loosely based on a one-off villain from the comics, because they are taking the in-universe retcon that the two are the same person as a matter of fact.
In my opinion, the only source already cited that explicitly states one way or the other is this Escapist video, which says the TV show created Mr. Freeze, loosely basing him on an obscure character with a different name. Darkknight2149 appears to be of the opinion that a source saying the character first appeared in 1959 under the name "Mr. Zero" is adequate to dismiss the assertion that the character was created for the TV show.
I proposed that we say the sources are divided on the issue, with some saying the character first appeared in the comics in 1959, and others saying the character who appeared in 1959 was a loose inspiration for the character who was largely created for the TV show. I am not yet sure what Darkknight2149's opinion on this proposal is.
Sorry to post this on RSN, but since the sources (or lack thereof) are the problem here, in that they can almost all be interpreted either way, I thought it reasonable. It's my opinion that taking a source that says "First appearance: 1959" to reject the claim in a reliable source that the character was created for the TV show is borderline OR, but posting this on ORN would have been a worse option.
Any thoughts?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Is the Daily Mail a suitable source for this addition to John Noakes? The detail is reputed to be a quote from Peter Purves. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, but I note the source supplied at the top of the thread includes the phrase "Peter Purves dishes Blue Peter dirt" in it's title - that's a "no" from me. John Noakes clearly loved Shep (that's obvious from anyone who's ever owned a pet) and doesn't like Biddy Baxter, we don't need the specifics. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not about "celebrity gossip". The Mail has a justifiably atrocious reputation for its scientific and medical coverage; its coverage of international affairs is sensationalist and often completely false; it fabricates human-interest stories and legal coverage (including fake quotes), and so on. Again, it's not the only terrible, tabloidy source out there, but it's emblematic. When you, as an experienced editor, defend this kind of thing, you discredit yourself, you set a bad example, and you call your judgement into question. MastCell Talk 00:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
No, the Daily Mail is not a good source for that material. That newspaper cannot be trusted in this context. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
"with the Daily Mail reporting that co-presenter Peter Purves later said that Noakes refused to speak with Baxter.DrChrissy (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Several editors have attempted to argue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuleap (project management) that http://www.dhbw-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/dateien/KOS/pub_kos.content_1.2015.band1.pdf confers notability on Tuleap. I don't believe it does. These editors appear to be active editors of open source software and I believe that they are grasping at straws here. By extension, if it is significant coverage, then every other product listed in the catalogue is inherently notable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The Coast is a weekly publication in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Is this article suitable to support the following claim on the Frankie MacDonald page:
In 2016 CTV Atlantic meteorologist Cindy Day made online comments perceived by some to be insulting towards MacDonald and a Change.org petition was launched demanding that she be fired.
How reliable is itv.com as a source? To give an example, Katie Hopkins' recent brain surgery was added here citing the website. I followed this up at Talk:Katie Hopkins#Surgery (and relation to WP:BLPSOURCES) as a search for better sources brought up little more than the "usual suspects" such as the Daily Mail which I would, by and large, avoid like the plague on BLPs, tabloids and similar "gossip" publications, and finally itv.com? While ITV itself can produce high quality work (I am impartial to a bit of Morse and Lewis myself), I'm concerned that the website typically focuses too much on celebrity-focused sensational gossip, and a story that is genuinely worth reporting will appear in high-quality publications such as BBC News or The Guardian. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jaime Alguersuari (ex-Formula One racing driver, now retired) posted a photo on Twitter / Instagram of himself kissing another guy with the caption "Yes I am gay hahahah" (he is on the left in the photo: [36]) An editor has updated Alguersuari's page to state this as fact [37] but many people seem to be treating it as a joke. Alguersuari is a bon viveur to say the least. I know Twitter and Instagram are poor reference material but I've got nothing else to go on – it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else yet. Should we wait for a proper interview or something? What's the form regarding self-published stuff like this on social media? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 16:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
In normal usage, "hahaha" indicates that one ought not take the prior statement with any credulity at all. Collect ( talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing problem at James Sears regarding the claimed circulation of a newsletter, Your Ward News, for which Sears claims to be "editor-in-chief". In a Toronto Star article ( [38]) dated 16 May 2015, the newsletter's publisher (Leroy St. Germaine) is quoted claiming a circulation of "about 50,000 copies"; the article on Sears was created not long after that story appeared. Around November an IP (and then several others) began changing 50,000 to 77,000 supposedly based on a claim in Your Ward News, which I believe is an entirely unreliable source for this claim. Sears is fairly well known locally for making highly exaggerated claims about himself, and feeding off controversy in order to promote his pick-up artist business. I don't keep the copies of Your Ward News that some unfortunate postal worker is forced to leave in my mailbox, but there are archived online versions, and from those we can see that the paper's circulation claims have steadily increased since the controversy started with Canada Post over whether the newsletter could be circulated at all: (links to newsletter NSFW)
Based on all of this, what claims can be considered reliably sourced? In my opinion 50,000 is as accurate as we can be (the Toronto Star source) however I have a small army of IPs disagreeing with me. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 16:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
There is firmly established by the the totality of reliable sources that a certain military person was bestowed the nation's highest military honour 20 yrs after the war for the sum of the person's military achievements. According to the memoirs of the said person the reason for recognition to be so late was that in the recomendation for the award, written by the person's command during the war, the person in question had been cited as killed in action, but indeed the person had survived and had been captured by enemy (beeing POW untill the end of the war) and, without "heroic death" the sum of feats was considered lesser, so the person was bestowed a lesser award immediately after the war, but 20 yrs later the government changed it's mind. This explanation is confirmed by one (more or less) independent source. Now in the memoirs the person quots (directly) the excerpt from the original award recommendation, which enumerates the feats. At least one of them is confirmed by many independent sources. Some are, essentialy, trifling. One of achievements is, in my opinion, deserve to be mentioned in WP, but the only source known to me is the said quotation in the person's memoirs - thus a not independent source. On the other hand, false quotation of the award recomendation is quite a disgraceful thing, the one, that, in my opinion, should not be supposed for a decorated warrior without a due reason. The deed is, though, to some extent, outstanding, by no means extraordinary (actually, in comparison to other recipients of the award, even the sum of the feats of the person in question fits the award but barely, if at all). What are opinions on the matter? Эйхер ( talk) 11:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like, please, feedback on whether or not these two sources are good:
The content it supports is:
Many thanks.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association a reliable source for medical information? Specifically, I came across this journal used as a reference in SierraSil, an article that appears to be promotional in nature, relying on authorative-sounding sources and celebrity endorsements to promote the effectiveness of this supplement. Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association is actually referenced three times to three separate articles by the same authors, who I would not be surprised to have a connection to the company making the product. Deli nk ( talk) 13:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
There is some difference of opinion regarding the reliability of sources for this article per WP:BLOGS. Can visitors to this noticeboard please comment on whether or not the following websites are considered as reliable sources for the history, desciption and services of the domain forum, NamePros?
Any comments or insights? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is more of a general question, but I've noticed a lot of articles with this problem. The "Ireland" source in Star Wars sequel trilogy was my immediate impetus so ... if a source written last summer says filming "will take place this week", can we use it after the fact to state that filming took place that week? I ask not because I think it didn't (I have no reason to think so) but because a strict interpretation of WP:V would mean that technically such a source is only valid for the claim "it was reported that filming would take place that week". In some cases I'm sure our citation of a source has been "updated" thusly when something had gone wrong and the source's prediction had not come true, in which cases our information is neither true nor verifiable. But even in this benign example, the information is not directly supported by the source although probably true. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like some input here to help vet this so-called source. It looks questionable to me. An new IP user recently cited this article from the Mirror to add content to the Intelligence Support Activity article. Any feedback here would be appreciated. Thanks - theWOLFchild 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
GREY Fox – an elite American Special Forces kill squad...". My understanding is that they are primarily a recon & SIGINT/HUMINT unit, used for deep infiltration/long-term undercover operations in hostile areas. It goes on to say;
ISA members were among the Operation Geronimo squad of Navy commandos who killed bin Laden...That's the first I'm hearing of that. Apparently this is basis for the attempted edit. This article states their info comes from an "unnamed intelligence source". It all sounds a little to sketchy, hence the reason I reverted the edit, and requested the IP user propose it on the talk page. They haven't as of yet, but it were to, I would suggest finding another more established and confirmed reliable source to support the edit. To me, this article sounds like they took a real unit, but added a bunch of pulp-novel-esque fiction to amp it up to sell more papers. In short, not reliable. - theWOLFchild 23:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Source: Kurowski, Franz (2007). Oberleutnant Otto Kittel—Der erfolgreichste Jagdflieger des Jagdgeschwaders 54 [First Lieutenant Otto Kittel—The most successful Fighter Pilot of Fighter Wing 54] (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig Verlag.
ISBN
978-3-88189-733-4. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Article: Otto Kittel
Content: Two types of content (the article is largely cited to Franz Kurowski):
(1) non-notable details and potentially unverifiable statements, such as:
(2) Military statistics:
More info on the author:
According to the historian Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davis, Kurowski is a "guru". Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army". In addition, the gurus are:
“authors, (who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia….. who insist on authenticity in their writings, combine a painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals, with a romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism. There is little in the way of historical context in the writings of these men.”
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: "Kurowski 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", Smelser and Davies conclude. [1]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help), pp=5, 173–178, 251
If you are curious about the book I'm citing, here are two reviews: Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army by a professional historian ("The book is a fascinating immersion into a simple but important question: How did the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front during World War Two become hero figures to so many Americans?"), and another one, surprisingly nuanced, from feldgrau.net, one of outlets for "romancers" that Smelser and Davies critique. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds as though it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative, like Little House on the Prairie. Is the publisher, Flechsig Verlag, reputable? Is it a vanity press? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 05:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
While the source The myth of the Eastern Front reminds us that we need to be cautious, I think to reject Kurowski completely as unreliable on the basis of that source is a tad bit over-zealous, and frankly, lazy. Kurowski may well indeed be a "Romanciser" of the German military, that does not mean that he is completely unreliable, particularly in regard to factual operational matters and events.
To recap what was quoted above, the historian Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davis, say Kurowski is a "guru". Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army". In addition, the gurus are
Lots of veterans have written books on WW2 topics, Brits, American, Russians, and no doubt there is a certain degree of romanticising by these authors too. However these historians do acknowledge that the "details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals" are "painfully accurate". We just need to assess each claim per WP:BIASED and leave out the bits that heroicize the '"German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism". -- Nug ( talk) 10:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Kurowski was criticized by other historians, see for example: "Military historian Jürgen Rohwer began a critical examination of the data published by Nazi Germany on successes (sunken tonnage) of submarine commanders in 1957. Afterwards, Kurowski belonged to the authors, who held on to the details of the Nazi propaganda regardless of the research results." (Please see source and exact citation on De Wikipedia article above). So his numbers of "victories" are not to be trusted.
On "authenticity" -- Smelser & Davies extend it only to "details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals". They do not extend this to operational history or actions of individual soldiers. He could be considered a reliable source on Wehrmacht uniforms or medals, but otherwise sounds like " militaria literature" to me, not a work by a historian. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Infinitely more. You've been asked for sources at Talk:Otto Kittel. You haven't given any. What evidence do we have that Kurowski and the information provided by him is unreliable in relation to Otto Kittel? None has been given. This isn't a controversial book about a controversial subject. It is about one man, a pilot. It is good enough for him. Using one source, who criticises Kurowski's work on broader, controversial topics, cannot be used to infer his work on Kittel is biased. It is beyond absurd. The opinions of a few editors on Wikipedia is not enough. One editor described that it as lazy analysis, I'd go further.... Dapi89 ( talk) 20:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
From WP:Identifying reliable sources guidelines:
"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
In this case, the "creator of the work" (Kurowski), has been seriously criticized. In this context of the article in question, his account also appears to be semi-fictional, as Darkfrog24 pointed out.
I would like to hear other editors' opinions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
4 editors deemed Kurowski non WP:RS, 1 editor deemed it WP:BIASED and 1 editor deemed it WP:RS. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67: Thank you for your comment. Here's the partial list of statements that are cited to Kurowski; there are 35 citation to this source.
References
Would you consider Kurowski reliable for these statements? K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you missed the discussion above, via Franz Kurowski & The Myth of the Eastern Front:
The article is almost exclusively cited to Kurowski.
Cheers, K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
At a separate discussion on
MilHist discussion board, the involved editor posted that "in actual fact three have yet to return to give a substantial opinion"
and "three (including myself) regard him as a reliable enough source for Otto Kittel"
.
I'm pinging @ Nick-D, Darkfrog24, and Stephan Schulz: as non WP:RS voters and @ Nug: as WP:Biased voter. I had thought that you guys had made your position clear, but it appears that further clarifications for the editor are needed. If you could return and restate/expand on your position, that would be very helpful. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
A quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in.
Add: Smelser & Davies attribute to Kurowski "painfully accurate knowledge" about "medals, uniforms, and vehicles"; they do not extend it to personalities or operational history. They suggest the opposite. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a ongoing dispute at Chesterfield F.C. regarding the year in which the club was founded. An anonymous editor is using three articles published by the club [45] [46] [47] to backup their assertion that we use 1866 as the date of their foundation ( diff). I am contending that the club cannot be considered a reliable source in this matter for two reasons. Firstly, the 1866 date means that it is their 150th anniversary this year which they are using to garner publicity and revenue (two of the articles are specificity for this purpose). Thus they are biased in this regard. Additionally, they have shown themselves to be inconsistent on which date they support. There was in-depth article about the club's foundation which was held on the club website until about 2012 that stated that the club was founded in 1919. There is also another article published on the site in January this year that uses the 1919 date. [48] Only recently have they switched to using the 1866 date. Eckerslike ( talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
1. Source Phoenix New Media Limited Article on Sabrina Ho [49]
2. Article. /info/en/?search=Draft:Sabrina_Ho
3. Query Can I use this news source as a reliable source to demonstrate notability of the subject?
Justification: 1. Phoenix News Media Limited is a mainstream Chinese media company with financials: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/phoenix-media-reports-fourth-quarter-220000273.html 2. The article discusses the topic directly and in detail
Is the MusicBrainz blog a suitable source [50] for this accusation of corporate forgery? VQuakr ( talk) 07:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Is www.youssefbeykaram.org a reliable source for having and extracting information about Lebanese Hero Youssef Bey Karam?
This site is dedicated for Youssef Bey Karam Foundation, non-profit organization.
The site contains large information about Youssef Bey Karam, his life, his battles, his toughts. It has two versions (Arabic & English).
GMO conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following paragraph was removed from this article:
Vandana Shiva, an anti-agribusiness activist, is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy, [1] while Bill Maher was criticized by science blogger Kyle Hill on the Scientific American website for promulgating Argumentum Ad Monsantum. According to Hill, "[m]aking the leap from Monsanto’s business practices—whatever you may think of them—to the “dangers” of GM foods is a mistake in logical reasoning. It is akin to saying landscape paintings are potentially evil because the painter was a serial killer." [2]
I would like to see some people who are independent of the ongoing controversies over GMO articles offer their evaluation of the paragraph. Are the sources adequate for what the text says? Is there a rewording that may be better?
jps ( talk) 14:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Editing this article - and even its talk page, seems a bit like herding cats. The lead states that "The alt-right is a group of right-wing ideologies that are an alternative to mainstream conservatism" which seems more or less correct. The term itself is said to have been introduced in 2010 (in the lead, but further down earlier dates are mentioned) and is used for a heterogeneous political grouping that is seen as the main support, for instance of Trump. The lead also calls it a movement, which may be a bit strong. According to the lead it includes beliefs such as " neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, racialism, identitarianism, white nationalism, and American secessionism" although the "Definition" section has a slightly different list, " neoreaction, eugenics, reactionism, racialism, white nationalism, traditionalism, identitarianism, and archeofuturism" - a couple of those being redirects.
There have been a number of sourcing issues and still are. The one that concerns me is about including "white supremacism" as part of the lead (and I guess definition). I'm on the side of including it. Sources for the term include [1] (one of the main sources used in the article) which describes it as " "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times", Cathy Young [2] and [[Chris Hayes {journalist)]] who describes it as "essentially modern day white supremacy."
There was a source from the ADL [51] which was described as a blog by User:Maunus "ADL blog for example is not a reloiable source for what this "movement" is or isnt)." It says "Though not every person who identifies with the Alt Right is a white supremacist, most are and “white identity” is central to people in this milieu." I think we can use this source and would like specific comments on it.
Another source using the term is by Betsy Woodruff "a political reporter for the Daily Beast and formerly of Slate and National Review" in an article in The Daily Beast. Not only does she link white supremacism to the alt-right, she quotes an ADL spokesperson as saying "“It’s basically a term that white supremacists use who see themselves as part of a new movement,” she said. “They want to differentiate themselves from the conservative or mainstream right. They see the mainstream right as being opposed to white interests.” [52]
There's opposition on the talk page to including the term. User:Denarivs wrote "There aren't any sources yet that describe that, but a clear majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacy, which would be a very strange distinction to overlook. The Newsday source is of very marginal reliability–it's just an editorial and probably should be removed from the article." and ": the vast majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacist.... Based on this clear evidence from reliable sources across the ideological spectrum, I strongly oppose use of the descriptor "white supremacy" to describe the alt-right per WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources provide unambiguous evidence that the alt-right does not include white supremacy. If the phrase is included at all, it is best included in a quote in the article's body, as in the previous version of this article." and mentions " a fringe minority of marginally reliable sources with a clear idoelogical bias calling the alt-right white supremacist." (Note that one of the sources used to write for National Review", so they seem to spread across the political spectrum).
I obviously disagree. Not mentioning "white supremacy" doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it, and look at some of the ideologies mentioned in the lead and definition - it's not as though many sources mention them. WP:UNDUE may be OT for this board usually but perhaps not in this argument. I also thought that "According to Rosie Gray, "The alt right’s targets don’t include just liberals, blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, and Muslims, who are all classified a priori as objects of suspicion...The alt right’s real objective, if one can be identified, is to challenge and dismantle mainstream conservatism." [1]" was useful but it was removed as being WP:UNDUE also.
There's a general sourcing problem in that the academic world hasn't paid much attention to this yet, something that I'm guessing may change this year. We really need more eyes on this article, but I'm obviously looking for specific comments related to the use of the term "white supremacism". Doug Weller talk 11:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That has no bearing on this discussion. Whether white supremacy is a subset of, or a different movement than white nationalism does not address the issue of whether or not reliable sources indicate that white supremacy is a part of the alt-right movement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
References
And yes, Grammar'sLittleHelper, I'm happy with "x includes y believers".For the record, I would be quite happy with that, too. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
What? Sorry Connor, but I'm struggling with what you are saying. Let's start with some links to the sources that say white nationalism is another term for white supremacism. I know some say that there are white supremacists who call themselves white nationalists, but I assume you mean something else. Doug Weller talk 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
No one has responded to my question about the ADL source yet. Any comments? Doug Weller talk 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I want to confirm if we can accept this as reliable source to support these changes. Thank You – GSS ( talk) 08:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek has been bulk removing citations to Washington Times, in some cases leaving previously cited material without citation. There has been no talk page discussion on any of the relevant pages. None of the citations removed appear to be regarding anything that requires special scrutiny (one of the citations is for the circulation size of a small newspaper for example) I am unaware of any larger decision which universally dismisses WT. When I asked VM about his action he said "It's enough that it doesn't satisfy the criteria for WP:RS"
Is the WT so unreliable that it can be removed without discussion and leaves material with no citation? If so, presumably it should be blacklisted. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the newspaper is now a full step below direct Unification Church operations - it is in the same "Operations Holdings" group as the New Yorker Hotel Management Company, etc. and a bunch of marine corporations and the like. In short - opinions cited and sourced as opinions from it are generally usable, and direct statements of fact from its "fact articles" are generally usable as statements of fact. Material related in any way to the goals or beliefs of the Unification Church are more problematic - and should likely be regards as "self-published" in that area. Collect ( talk) 14:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this iHorror.com's movie review reliable enough to include when mentioning the films of Jack Thomas Smith in Smith's article? Nightscream ( talk) 05:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about whether a popular TV character should be diagnosed with a "psychosomatic" condition based on a source that is not reliable for medical diagnosis. See Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Request for comment. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I added the following text to the article on Amway however it was removed with the claim none of the sources were reliable.
A similar class action case lodged in Canada was rejected by the court and confirmed on appeal, with costs awarded to Amway and the plaintiffs directed to arbitration. [1] [2] [3]
Searching through the archives there seems to be some debate about the use of law firm published articles as RS. Should the primary source (decision) be used instead? -- Icerat ( talk) 01:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
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 200 | ← | Archive 202 | Archive 203 | Archive 204 | Archive 205 | Archive 206 | → | Archive 210 |
"United States Social Security Death Index," database, FamilySearch ( https://familysearch.org/ark:/61903/1:1:JGGT-JZQ : accessed 17 February 2016), Henry Gibson, 14 Sep 2009; citing U.S. Social Security Administration, Death Master File, database (Alexandria, Virginia: National Technical Information Service, ongoing
Is proffered as a reliable source for the particular claim that " Henry Gibson" was the legal name in United States Social Security records of a person who died on 14 Sep 2009, born 21 Sep 1935, with a residence in Malibu. One editor says this is not a ".gov" address and thus can not be the SSA.
I suggest it is the SSA database clearly being used, and that the editor is using a weak cavil at best. Discussion at Talk:Henry_Gibson#name_per_Social_Security_System and note that the land records for Malibu indicate the person was Henry Gibson as well. The dates on this record precisely match those for Henry Gibson, the place of residence matches Henry Gibson and, more to the point, no record for James Bateman matching any known facts whatsoever about the person Henry Gibson in that database. I am getting tired of an editor warring that his only "real name" is James Bateman. Pinging EauZenCashHaveIt, Mlpearc.., Thanks. Collect ( talk) 13:15, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Sorry GLH, but you are wrong here. We certainly can use primary government records, provided that they are accessible by the general public (which does not mean easily accessible). Primary sources are explicitly allowed by WP:NOR... We simply must use them with caution. The question is... Has anyone actually confirmed what the government records say? Blueboar ( talk) 00:39, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
The records of the US Social Security Administration would not be ambiguous, as there is a unique identifying number attached. Blueboar ( talk) 02:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
1. Sources: Times of Israel, Guardian 1, DW, Guardian 2, Maz, RTE.
2. Article: Pegida.
3. Content: Lead sentence of the Pegida article.
Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamisation of the West ( German: Patriotische Europäer gegen die Islamisierung des Abendlandes), abbreviated PEGIDA or Pegida, is a far right wing neo-nazi movement...
My take on it: except for the Maz article, none of the sources refer to Pegida as "neo-nazi". While many of them discuss neo-nazis at Pegida events (which obviously should be covered in the Wikipedia article), none of them refer to Pegida itself as neo-nazi.
The Maz article is an interview with an activist for an anti-right wing group, and really isn't suitable at all for stating these things in Wikipedia's voice.
I would also argue that the sources don't even support the "far right" label - of these sources, only The Guardian appears to use this label. Faceless Enemy ( talk) 01:58, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
The description of the AFD as (far) right-wing as in right of the center right fairly common in the German press and a common assessment by scholars in sociology and politics (in interviews). I understand the skepticism towards quick superficial labeling in the press. Maybe a better a approach is having the lead without any such label and moving that information in separate section dealing with the political placement of the movement, where the assessments of reputable news publications can be given but possible augmented by German publications of which there are plenty and more important scholarly sources (which do exist in German at least). Note that the German article uses currently "right wing populist" ("Rechtpopulismus") as label and it has a section with scholarly assessments, that could be utilized for the English article.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:22, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Sources appear to support "right-wing anti-Islamization group" but the "neo-Nazi" epithet appears to be in the nature of "editorial opinion" rather than a statement of fact. The pejorative term is "contentious" thus the fact one source states it as an opinion is insufficient for Wikipedia to state it as a fact.
Collect (
talk) 14:10, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Pegida is routinely described as "far-right" and as including neo-Nazis in their ranks, a hallmark of far-right politics. Based on reviewing what sources write I think you should also describe the group as "xenophobic," since every other source uses this term without qualification.
The German establishment Deutsche Welle writes that Pegida is one of a number of "far-right movements" throughout Europe. [8] They also write, "Germany's well-organized neo-Nazi scene is merging with the anti-Islamization PEGIDA movement... an integral part of the group's weekly marches... appear to be tolerated by organizers." [9]
Germany's flagship magazine news source Der Spiegel describes Pegida as "a xenophobic grassroots movement," whose growth is fueled by hate and threatens to make far-right politics mainstream. Pegida has close ties with Björn Höcke, Götz Kubitschek, Jürgen Elsässer, and Michael Stürzenberger. The article describes debate among German officials about whether Pegida is "far-right," but even the Saxon official who is more sympathetic to Pegida describes it as a "populist far-right movement." [10], [11], [12]
The International Business Times describes "regular marches by the far-right group Pegida," [13] and labels them "far-right." [14]. So does MSN. [15]
The Guardian describes Pegida as "a far-right group." [16], [17] The Telegraph and many in the German political establishment describe Pegida as a part of the "far-right." [18] So does Public Radio International. [19]
The Independent describes Pegida as a "xenophobic group," that has surprised main parties by including "known neo-Nazis and far-right hooligans" in addition to middle and lower class Germans worried about immigration. [20] The BBC writes that Pegida "has attracted a variety of right-wing and far-right groups", some ordinary citizens worried about Islam, far-right hooligans, and praise from neo-Nazi groups. [21] Newsweek writes that Pegida is "a far-right German group whose name is an acronym for Patriotic Europeans Against the Islamization of the West." [22]
The French press regularly describe either Pegida or their supporters as extreme right. [23], [24], [25], [26]
Anyone who thinks that Pegida isn't far-right doesn't know what the term means and isn't reading the news. - Darouet ( talk) 22:08, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not about what the sources already cited say. It's about what reliable sources say. Googling for news articles with the terms "Pegida" and "neo-Nazi" brought up some interesting results. Deutsche Welle explicitly contrasts the group with the "neo-Nazi scene" (not saying they are not similar, just saying they are two distinct entities). The Times of Israel explicitly calls the group's members neo-Nazis. Breitbart.com says they totally aren't neo-Nazis and it's only pinko commie liberals who confuse the two, which makes me really think that there are probably a very large number of more reliable sources that call the group a neo-Nazi group. The Irish Independent refers to them as "the neo-Nazi movement". Exactly how many reliable sources do we need to find? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:59, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
BLP and WEIGHT concerns about the subject himself aside, this edit looks more like personal opinion than any objective measure of whether a source is generally reliable and should be cited in a Wikipedia article. Thoughts? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:20, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
Would this website be reliable for anime/manga related content? The website is in Chinese so I would need someone fluent in the language to check on this one. Here is the page in question [29]. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 00:18, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I was wondering can anyone guide me how to source a content from a valid email response? For the song " Living for Love", the Australian chart regulatory board, ARIA, replied to an inquiry email with the chart peak position. So how can I source it in the article? — IB [ Poke ] 09:53, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
Where do the sort of sites which essentially allow "letters to the editor" to be published fit on Wiki's spectrum of "reliability?"
I'm thinking about the online version of "Counterpunch", which posts unsolicited, uncompensated articles, with a degree of editorial oversight. Some of the stuff, leaving aside questions of POV, is pretty good, some not so much.
Would writing for this sort of website a couple of times qualify someone as a "journalist" by wikiish standards? Anmccaff ( talk) 21:36, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Guys, we have problem here [30], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.
Guys, we have problem here [31], can you help a little bit? Some ukranian according to profile (seems not objective) moderator doesn't want to fix a mistake (propaganda) in article. DPR Poll Support discussion.
I didn't get back to the recent discussion Roger Tolces before it was archived. I have been in email contact with him. He confirms what is popularly believed, that he coined the term. He says he called it that in 1973 and was at the time testing people for electronic implants. He has a very detailed definition of what he means by the term on his website, which does coincide with popular use. What else would be needed to put both in the article? To me it seems it should be the starting point, if he was the start of it, no matter how anyone sees the issue. Jed Stuart ( talk) 00:22, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
A recent blog post from Edzard Ernst notes that a "journal" is soliciting for papers supporting cancer quackery. This is the same journal the Burzynski Clinic used to publish some of its bogus trials of "antineoplastons" - it is open access and very likely predatory. Journal of Cancer Therapy is clearly not a RS, and it's likely that others from the same publisher, Scientific Research Publishing, are equally problematic. There are over 250 links, we should check these carefully I think. Guy ( Help!) 13:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Hi all, I have a question that arose from an Afd discussion I have been having with a very experienced editor. The question is: Is being awarded a Guinness World Record a significant award? Thank you. Xender Lourdes ( talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Background: Popcorn Time is a program/website/repository that was shut down by the MPAA. Subsequently, various more or less "legitimate" forks were released, some of them with allegations of containing malware (I mention it just to show it's best to be careful before legitimizing any of these).
Now, popcorntime.sh has appeared, and it stands out because some of the original project's resources (site, repositories and even the Twitter account) now direct to it. This is being used by some editors at Talk:Popcorn Time#popcorntime.sh to justify treating this new website as the "official successor" of the original popcorntime.io.
However, some sources were presented by one of these very editors that seem to strongly contradict this claim:
"nobody seems to know who is behind the updated app"and that
"the original team [...] claimed to have nothing to do with the revived app"and even that
"It’s entirely possible (though unlikely) that the MPAA could be trying to use the app as a honeypot to track movie pirates."
"the official GitHub repository was updated with a new working version and now points to PopcornTime.sh as the new home, as does the official Twitter account", but without affirming that this means the new site is official. In addition, it notes that
"The code used to update the old application [...] uses four nameservers [...] which are all controlled and owned by the MPAA"
(emphasis mine)
The other editors seem to argue that because the sources do not rule out it may be official, it might be treated as official: they say "Not Knowing who is behind the new website do not say it is not official"
and "Torrentfreak not knowing who the developers are (since they chose to stay anon) doesn't imply a negative, either. "Evidence of absence" and all that stuff."
.
Teemome in particular also states "Since other third party references (separate from the new website) state that it is the successor (the statuspage.io, the old popcorntime.io facebook and twitter, etc), then we can use those as a reference and consider it true."
as if implying that websites and accounts previously run by project members are "third-party references".
So I have some questions:
LjL ( talk) 17:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
"no one is really able to say absolutely definitively which forks are totally trustworthy and which ones aren’t, since everyone is keen to hide their identities and remain unaccountable"and that
"it’s no longer possible to publicly point to a set of trustworthy developers and use their credentials to give credibility to a project", which runs directly contrary to the concept of naming an official successor.
"the project still uses private keys that match the original team’s for distribution". Because the application updates are signed, so due to cryptographic encryption, only the people working on the original project can push out this update, I'm afraid that makes very little sense, because if the MPAA seized these people's assets, then it's perfectly plausible that they seized their private keys as well, and encryption doesn't magically stop that. LjL ( talk) 00:47, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
"The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return""and
"we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation""and
"Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)".
"The variant of Popcorn Time most closely linked with the edition shut down by the MPAA last year has announced its official return""← "most closely linked" doesn't mean "official successor"
"we now have the first official statement from the people behind the reincarnation""← yes, the people behind the reincarnation, which may or may not be the same people who were behind the original thing
"Noting that an explanation is long overdue, the team (located at popcorntime.sh)"← this refers to the reincarnation's team (see the paragraph that comes before this one), and it's not saying it's the same team as the original one
"Most of our old teammates have left the ship to focus on a new technology", so clearly it's not the exact same team and yet successors can be determined.
"None of them could be labelled "official successors", because they weren't necessarily run by the same people."which implies that successors can only be considered such, if it's run by the same people. That's not the case, however; this has already happened before in August 2015: https://torrentfreak.com/original-popcorn-time-team-backs-popular-fork-150812/ Where some members of the old project declared the .io fork the "official" successor to the 2014 Argentine Popcorntime. The old team clearly has the right to do this, as history has shown, so even though we don't know which programmers are working on the new project doesn't affect the succession status. Software projects hardly need to have the same people working on it for it to be considered successors, that shouldn't be considered a requirement.
"Popcorntime.io, probably the most popular iteration of slippery movie piracy app Popcorn Time, is back — sort of. Earlier this week, part of the team apparently behind popcorntime.io announced a comeback"source http://www.theverge.com/2016/2/26/11119290/popcorn-time-io-movie-streaming-piracy-back-online This is about as clearly stated for a secondary reference source as you can get. Is there any more discussion needed? Teemome ( talk) 00:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
This site is already considered to be unreliable on Wikipedia, but I thought that it would be a good idea to have an official RS/N thread to refer to when it comes to this site. There was mention of this in this thread, but an overall thread about the site would be helpful for future reference.
Goodreads is a social media/networking site that allows users to post reviews of work. Users can also edit entries on books and submit updates to material or even create new entries entirely, which makes it popular with self-published and indie authors whose work might not be collected in libraries and end up in WorldCat. While the site says that only "librarians" can edit entries, it really isn't difficult to become one. I used to visit the site and became a librarian after a fairly short period of time.
An example of why the site can't be seen as reliable even for primary details would be things like Scott Sigler's book Nocturnal, where two versions of the book exist - a podcast "rough draft" and the final version, which was released in print. The two works share some basic similarities with the plot (detective discovers that he's part of a race of monsters that prey on San Fran), but they're otherwise completely different stories with some fairly major changes that would make any reviews for one version irrelevant to the other. Various librarians repeatedly merged the two together thinking that they were essentially the same thing, which led to user confusion with reviews and it eventually became necessary for some of the site's mods to fix the mistake. Material like rumors and hoaxes have also made its way into records as well, mostly because of good intentioned people believing the material to be fact. It's usually fixed, but this makes the website similar to Wikipedia in terms of reliability - you can't use Wikipedia to back up claims in anything except the most rare situations.
Now I am aware that there are places that list Goodreads, mostly because people add it thinking that it's the equivalent of WorldCat or even Google Books. There are some of us that have made a concentrated effort to remove the links as we see them, but there's always someone trying to add it for various details, ranging from basic information to review claims. I'd like to have some sort of basic thread to pull back on when trying to explain that it's not reliable because it's ultimately a self-published source. Amazon did buy the site, but they did not take away users' ability to edit data, so it's still a SPS at best because of its social media site nature. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:55, 19 February 2016 (UTC)
Rebuttal
|
---|
|
I have been using LCCN entries for people as sources for their birthdates for a little while now, assuming it was reliable. But now, when I was looking up Chuck Cleaver's entry on there [34] to see if his birthdate was listed there, I noticed that one phrase, sourced to "Wikipedia website", appears in his LCCN entry, leading me to suspect that LCCN entries are not reliable sources, at least not for BLPs. I would like to know what others think. Everymorning (talk) 01:09, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
I can't quite get a handle on the nature of the nippon.com website. It clearly isn't a conventional news site nor is it merely a blog as it has an editorial board. [1] The website does not appear to be an online extension of a dead tree magazine or journal either.
The page/article/editorial (what is it?) that I'm using as a source [2] is written by an apparently reputable academic, so it's reliability per se seems established. I'm trying to figure out how to properly cite it - none of "cite news/editorial/blog" appear to me to be a comfortable fit. Help! Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:34, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Was the character created for the TV show and loosely based on an obscure one-off comic villain, or created for the comic and renamed/popularized by the TV show?
The line between these two is extremely blurry, there is a dispute between me and User:Darkknight2149 over how our article should be worded on this point. A problem is that the majority of sources that discuss the problem in detail can be interpreted either way. No "full history" of the character can completely neglect either the fact that a similar character first appeared in the comics in 1959 or the fact that said character was essentially a one-off until the TV show renamed and popularized him. Thus, Darkknight2149 and I have interpreted this source differently. A lot of sources are also written "semi-in-universe": within the universe of the comics "Mr. Zero" and "Mr. Freeze" were later determined to be the same person. So a lot of sources simply say "the character first appeared in 1959". It is my view that sources saying the character first appeared in 1959 cannot be used for the claim that the character was not created for the TV show and loosely based on a one-off villain from the comics, because they are taking the in-universe retcon that the two are the same person as a matter of fact.
In my opinion, the only source already cited that explicitly states one way or the other is this Escapist video, which says the TV show created Mr. Freeze, loosely basing him on an obscure character with a different name. Darkknight2149 appears to be of the opinion that a source saying the character first appeared in 1959 under the name "Mr. Zero" is adequate to dismiss the assertion that the character was created for the TV show.
I proposed that we say the sources are divided on the issue, with some saying the character first appeared in the comics in 1959, and others saying the character who appeared in 1959 was a loose inspiration for the character who was largely created for the TV show. I am not yet sure what Darkknight2149's opinion on this proposal is.
Sorry to post this on RSN, but since the sources (or lack thereof) are the problem here, in that they can almost all be interpreted either way, I thought it reasonable. It's my opinion that taking a source that says "First appearance: 1959" to reject the claim in a reliable source that the character was created for the TV show is borderline OR, but posting this on ORN would have been a worse option.
Any thoughts?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Is the Daily Mail a suitable source for this addition to John Noakes? The detail is reputed to be a quote from Peter Purves. Martinevans123 ( talk) 18:58, 21 February 2016 (UTC)
I'm late to the party, but I note the source supplied at the top of the thread includes the phrase "Peter Purves dishes Blue Peter dirt" in it's title - that's a "no" from me. John Noakes clearly loved Shep (that's obvious from anyone who's ever owned a pet) and doesn't like Biddy Baxter, we don't need the specifics. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
It's not about "celebrity gossip". The Mail has a justifiably atrocious reputation for its scientific and medical coverage; its coverage of international affairs is sensationalist and often completely false; it fabricates human-interest stories and legal coverage (including fake quotes), and so on. Again, it's not the only terrible, tabloidy source out there, but it's emblematic. When you, as an experienced editor, defend this kind of thing, you discredit yourself, you set a bad example, and you call your judgement into question. MastCell Talk 00:52, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
No, the Daily Mail is not a good source for that material. That newspaper cannot be trusted in this context. Nomoskedasticity ( talk) 09:53, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
"with the Daily Mail reporting that co-presenter Peter Purves later said that Noakes refused to speak with Baxter.DrChrissy (talk) 20:38, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
Several editors have attempted to argue at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tuleap (project management) that http://www.dhbw-stuttgart.de/fileadmin/dateien/KOS/pub_kos.content_1.2015.band1.pdf confers notability on Tuleap. I don't believe it does. These editors appear to be active editors of open source software and I believe that they are grasping at straws here. By extension, if it is significant coverage, then every other product listed in the catalogue is inherently notable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 05:31, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
The Coast is a weekly publication in Halifax, Nova Scotia. Is this article suitable to support the following claim on the Frankie MacDonald page:
In 2016 CTV Atlantic meteorologist Cindy Day made online comments perceived by some to be insulting towards MacDonald and a Change.org petition was launched demanding that she be fired.
How reliable is itv.com as a source? To give an example, Katie Hopkins' recent brain surgery was added here citing the website. I followed this up at Talk:Katie Hopkins#Surgery (and relation to WP:BLPSOURCES) as a search for better sources brought up little more than the "usual suspects" such as the Daily Mail which I would, by and large, avoid like the plague on BLPs, tabloids and similar "gossip" publications, and finally itv.com? While ITV itself can produce high quality work (I am impartial to a bit of Morse and Lewis myself), I'm concerned that the website typically focuses too much on celebrity-focused sensational gossip, and a story that is genuinely worth reporting will appear in high-quality publications such as BBC News or The Guardian. What does anyone else think? Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 14:16, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Jaime Alguersuari (ex-Formula One racing driver, now retired) posted a photo on Twitter / Instagram of himself kissing another guy with the caption "Yes I am gay hahahah" (he is on the left in the photo: [36]) An editor has updated Alguersuari's page to state this as fact [37] but many people seem to be treating it as a joke. Alguersuari is a bon viveur to say the least. I know Twitter and Instagram are poor reference material but I've got nothing else to go on – it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else yet. Should we wait for a proper interview or something? What's the form regarding self-published stuff like this on social media? Bretonbanquet ( talk) 16:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
In normal usage, "hahaha" indicates that one ought not take the prior statement with any credulity at all. Collect ( talk) 17:15, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
There is an ongoing problem at James Sears regarding the claimed circulation of a newsletter, Your Ward News, for which Sears claims to be "editor-in-chief". In a Toronto Star article ( [38]) dated 16 May 2015, the newsletter's publisher (Leroy St. Germaine) is quoted claiming a circulation of "about 50,000 copies"; the article on Sears was created not long after that story appeared. Around November an IP (and then several others) began changing 50,000 to 77,000 supposedly based on a claim in Your Ward News, which I believe is an entirely unreliable source for this claim. Sears is fairly well known locally for making highly exaggerated claims about himself, and feeding off controversy in order to promote his pick-up artist business. I don't keep the copies of Your Ward News that some unfortunate postal worker is forced to leave in my mailbox, but there are archived online versions, and from those we can see that the paper's circulation claims have steadily increased since the controversy started with Canada Post over whether the newsletter could be circulated at all: (links to newsletter NSFW)
Based on all of this, what claims can be considered reliably sourced? In my opinion 50,000 is as accurate as we can be (the Toronto Star source) however I have a small army of IPs disagreeing with me. Ivanvector 🍁 ( talk) 16:09, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
There is firmly established by the the totality of reliable sources that a certain military person was bestowed the nation's highest military honour 20 yrs after the war for the sum of the person's military achievements. According to the memoirs of the said person the reason for recognition to be so late was that in the recomendation for the award, written by the person's command during the war, the person in question had been cited as killed in action, but indeed the person had survived and had been captured by enemy (beeing POW untill the end of the war) and, without "heroic death" the sum of feats was considered lesser, so the person was bestowed a lesser award immediately after the war, but 20 yrs later the government changed it's mind. This explanation is confirmed by one (more or less) independent source. Now in the memoirs the person quots (directly) the excerpt from the original award recommendation, which enumerates the feats. At least one of them is confirmed by many independent sources. Some are, essentialy, trifling. One of achievements is, in my opinion, deserve to be mentioned in WP, but the only source known to me is the said quotation in the person's memoirs - thus a not independent source. On the other hand, false quotation of the award recomendation is quite a disgraceful thing, the one, that, in my opinion, should not be supposed for a decorated warrior without a due reason. The deed is, though, to some extent, outstanding, by no means extraordinary (actually, in comparison to other recipients of the award, even the sum of the feats of the person in question fits the award but barely, if at all). What are opinions on the matter? Эйхер ( talk) 11:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like, please, feedback on whether or not these two sources are good:
The content it supports is:
Many thanks.
Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 11:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
Is the Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association a reliable source for medical information? Specifically, I came across this journal used as a reference in SierraSil, an article that appears to be promotional in nature, relying on authorative-sounding sources and celebrity endorsements to promote the effectiveness of this supplement. Journal of the American Nutraceutical Association is actually referenced three times to three separate articles by the same authors, who I would not be surprised to have a connection to the company making the product. Deli nk ( talk) 13:36, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
There is some difference of opinion regarding the reliability of sources for this article per WP:BLOGS. Can visitors to this noticeboard please comment on whether or not the following websites are considered as reliable sources for the history, desciption and services of the domain forum, NamePros?
Any comments or insights? Thanks!-- — Keithbob • Talk • 21:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is more of a general question, but I've noticed a lot of articles with this problem. The "Ireland" source in Star Wars sequel trilogy was my immediate impetus so ... if a source written last summer says filming "will take place this week", can we use it after the fact to state that filming took place that week? I ask not because I think it didn't (I have no reason to think so) but because a strict interpretation of WP:V would mean that technically such a source is only valid for the claim "it was reported that filming would take place that week". In some cases I'm sure our citation of a source has been "updated" thusly when something had gone wrong and the source's prediction had not come true, in which cases our information is neither true nor verifiable. But even in this benign example, the information is not directly supported by the source although probably true. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:30, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
I would like some input here to help vet this so-called source. It looks questionable to me. An new IP user recently cited this article from the Mirror to add content to the Intelligence Support Activity article. Any feedback here would be appreciated. Thanks - theWOLFchild 08:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
GREY Fox – an elite American Special Forces kill squad...". My understanding is that they are primarily a recon & SIGINT/HUMINT unit, used for deep infiltration/long-term undercover operations in hostile areas. It goes on to say;
ISA members were among the Operation Geronimo squad of Navy commandos who killed bin Laden...That's the first I'm hearing of that. Apparently this is basis for the attempted edit. This article states their info comes from an "unnamed intelligence source". It all sounds a little to sketchy, hence the reason I reverted the edit, and requested the IP user propose it on the talk page. They haven't as of yet, but it were to, I would suggest finding another more established and confirmed reliable source to support the edit. To me, this article sounds like they took a real unit, but added a bunch of pulp-novel-esque fiction to amp it up to sell more papers. In short, not reliable. - theWOLFchild 23:53, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Source: Kurowski, Franz (2007). Oberleutnant Otto Kittel—Der erfolgreichste Jagdflieger des Jagdgeschwaders 54 [First Lieutenant Otto Kittel—The most successful Fighter Pilot of Fighter Wing 54] (in German). Würzburg, Germany: Flechsig Verlag.
ISBN
978-3-88189-733-4. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Article: Otto Kittel
Content: Two types of content (the article is largely cited to Franz Kurowski):
(1) non-notable details and potentially unverifiable statements, such as:
(2) Military statistics:
More info on the author:
According to the historian Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davis, Kurowski is a "guru". Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army". In addition, the gurus are:
“authors, (who) have picked up and disseminated the myths of the Wehrmacht in a wide variety of popular publications that romanticize the German struggle in Russia….. who insist on authenticity in their writings, combine a painfully accurate knowledge of the details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals, with a romantic heroicization of the German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism. There is little in the way of historical context in the writings of these men.”
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: "Kurowski 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", Smelser and Davies conclude. [1]
References
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help), pp=5, 173–178, 251
If you are curious about the book I'm citing, here are two reviews: Tracing the Resurrection of a Reputation: How Americans Came to Love the German Army by a professional historian ("The book is a fascinating immersion into a simple but important question: How did the German soldiers who fought on the eastern front during World War Two become hero figures to so many Americans?"), and another one, surprisingly nuanced, from feldgrau.net, one of outlets for "romancers" that Smelser and Davies critique. K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:52, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
It sounds as though it's not exactly history, that it's historical narrative, like Little House on the Prairie. Is the publisher, Flechsig Verlag, reputable? Is it a vanity press? Darkfrog24 ( talk) 05:08, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
While the source The myth of the Eastern Front reminds us that we need to be cautious, I think to reject Kurowski completely as unreliable on the basis of that source is a tad bit over-zealous, and frankly, lazy. Kurowski may well indeed be a "Romanciser" of the German military, that does not mean that he is completely unreliable, particularly in regard to factual operational matters and events.
To recap what was quoted above, the historian Ronald Smelser and Edward J. Davis, say Kurowski is a "guru". Gurus, in their definition, are "authors popular among the readers who romanticize the German army". In addition, the gurus are
Lots of veterans have written books on WW2 topics, Brits, American, Russians, and no doubt there is a certain degree of romanticising by these authors too. However these historians do acknowledge that the "details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals" are "painfully accurate". We just need to assess each claim per WP:BIASED and leave out the bits that heroicize the '"German army fighting to save Europe from a rapacious Communism". -- Nug ( talk) 10:11, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Kurowski was criticized by other historians, see for example: "Military historian Jürgen Rohwer began a critical examination of the data published by Nazi Germany on successes (sunken tonnage) of submarine commanders in 1957. Afterwards, Kurowski belonged to the authors, who held on to the details of the Nazi propaganda regardless of the research results." (Please see source and exact citation on De Wikipedia article above). So his numbers of "victories" are not to be trusted.
On "authenticity" -- Smelser & Davies extend it only to "details of the Wehrmacht, ranging from vehicles to uniforms to medals". They do not extend this to operational history or actions of individual soldiers. He could be considered a reliable source on Wehrmacht uniforms or medals, but otherwise sounds like " militaria literature" to me, not a work by a historian. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:22, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
Infinitely more. You've been asked for sources at Talk:Otto Kittel. You haven't given any. What evidence do we have that Kurowski and the information provided by him is unreliable in relation to Otto Kittel? None has been given. This isn't a controversial book about a controversial subject. It is about one man, a pilot. It is good enough for him. Using one source, who criticises Kurowski's work on broader, controversial topics, cannot be used to infer his work on Kittel is biased. It is beyond absurd. The opinions of a few editors on Wikipedia is not enough. One editor described that it as lazy analysis, I'd go further.... Dapi89 ( talk) 20:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC)
From WP:Identifying reliable sources guidelines:
"The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings:
Any of the three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. These qualifications should be demonstrable to other people."
In this case, the "creator of the work" (Kurowski), has been seriously criticized. In this context of the article in question, his account also appears to be semi-fictional, as Darkfrog24 pointed out.
I would like to hear other editors' opinions. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:15, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
4 editors deemed Kurowski non WP:RS, 1 editor deemed it WP:BIASED and 1 editor deemed it WP:RS. K.e.coffman ( talk) 02:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
@ Peacemaker67: Thank you for your comment. Here's the partial list of statements that are cited to Kurowski; there are 35 citation to this source.
References
Would you consider Kurowski reliable for these statements? K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:17, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure if you missed the discussion above, via Franz Kurowski & The Myth of the Eastern Front:
The article is almost exclusively cited to Kurowski.
Cheers, K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:28, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
At a separate discussion on
MilHist discussion board, the involved editor posted that "in actual fact three have yet to return to give a substantial opinion"
and "three (including myself) regard him as a reliable enough source for Otto Kittel"
.
I'm pinging @ Nick-D, Darkfrog24, and Stephan Schulz: as non WP:RS voters and @ Nug: as WP:Biased voter. I had thought that you guys had made your position clear, but it appears that further clarifications for the editor are needed. If you could return and restate/expand on your position, that would be very helpful. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:09, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
A quick note about a current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history (WWII content: Otto Kittel, other GA/FA articles) that you may be interested in.
Add: Smelser & Davies attribute to Kurowski "painfully accurate knowledge" about "medals, uniforms, and vehicles"; they do not extend it to personalities or operational history. They suggest the opposite. K.e.coffman ( talk) 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a ongoing dispute at Chesterfield F.C. regarding the year in which the club was founded. An anonymous editor is using three articles published by the club [45] [46] [47] to backup their assertion that we use 1866 as the date of their foundation ( diff). I am contending that the club cannot be considered a reliable source in this matter for two reasons. Firstly, the 1866 date means that it is their 150th anniversary this year which they are using to garner publicity and revenue (two of the articles are specificity for this purpose). Thus they are biased in this regard. Additionally, they have shown themselves to be inconsistent on which date they support. There was in-depth article about the club's foundation which was held on the club website until about 2012 that stated that the club was founded in 1919. There is also another article published on the site in January this year that uses the 1919 date. [48] Only recently have they switched to using the 1866 date. Eckerslike ( talk) 19:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
1. Source Phoenix New Media Limited Article on Sabrina Ho [49]
2. Article. /info/en/?search=Draft:Sabrina_Ho
3. Query Can I use this news source as a reliable source to demonstrate notability of the subject?
Justification: 1. Phoenix News Media Limited is a mainstream Chinese media company with financials: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/phoenix-media-reports-fourth-quarter-220000273.html 2. The article discusses the topic directly and in detail
Is the MusicBrainz blog a suitable source [50] for this accusation of corporate forgery? VQuakr ( talk) 07:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
Is www.youssefbeykaram.org a reliable source for having and extracting information about Lebanese Hero Youssef Bey Karam?
This site is dedicated for Youssef Bey Karam Foundation, non-profit organization.
The site contains large information about Youssef Bey Karam, his life, his battles, his toughts. It has two versions (Arabic & English).
GMO conspiracy theories ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The following paragraph was removed from this article:
Vandana Shiva, an anti-agribusiness activist, is in particular known for identifying Monsanto as the major source of the conspiracy, [1] while Bill Maher was criticized by science blogger Kyle Hill on the Scientific American website for promulgating Argumentum Ad Monsantum. According to Hill, "[m]aking the leap from Monsanto’s business practices—whatever you may think of them—to the “dangers” of GM foods is a mistake in logical reasoning. It is akin to saying landscape paintings are potentially evil because the painter was a serial killer." [2]
I would like to see some people who are independent of the ongoing controversies over GMO articles offer their evaluation of the paragraph. Are the sources adequate for what the text says? Is there a rewording that may be better?
jps ( talk) 14:49, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
References
Editing this article - and even its talk page, seems a bit like herding cats. The lead states that "The alt-right is a group of right-wing ideologies that are an alternative to mainstream conservatism" which seems more or less correct. The term itself is said to have been introduced in 2010 (in the lead, but further down earlier dates are mentioned) and is used for a heterogeneous political grouping that is seen as the main support, for instance of Trump. The lead also calls it a movement, which may be a bit strong. According to the lead it includes beliefs such as " neoreaction, monarchism, nativism, populism, racialism, identitarianism, white nationalism, and American secessionism" although the "Definition" section has a slightly different list, " neoreaction, eugenics, reactionism, racialism, white nationalism, traditionalism, identitarianism, and archeofuturism" - a couple of those being redirects.
There have been a number of sourcing issues and still are. The one that concerns me is about including "white supremacism" as part of the lead (and I guess definition). I'm on the side of including it. Sources for the term include [1] (one of the main sources used in the article) which describes it as " "white supremacy perfectly tailored for our times", Cathy Young [2] and [[Chris Hayes {journalist)]] who describes it as "essentially modern day white supremacy."
There was a source from the ADL [51] which was described as a blog by User:Maunus "ADL blog for example is not a reloiable source for what this "movement" is or isnt)." It says "Though not every person who identifies with the Alt Right is a white supremacist, most are and “white identity” is central to people in this milieu." I think we can use this source and would like specific comments on it.
Another source using the term is by Betsy Woodruff "a political reporter for the Daily Beast and formerly of Slate and National Review" in an article in The Daily Beast. Not only does she link white supremacism to the alt-right, she quotes an ADL spokesperson as saying "“It’s basically a term that white supremacists use who see themselves as part of a new movement,” she said. “They want to differentiate themselves from the conservative or mainstream right. They see the mainstream right as being opposed to white interests.” [52]
There's opposition on the talk page to including the term. User:Denarivs wrote "There aren't any sources yet that describe that, but a clear majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacy, which would be a very strange distinction to overlook. The Newsday source is of very marginal reliability–it's just an editorial and probably should be removed from the article." and ": the vast majority of sources do not describe the alt-right as white supremacist.... Based on this clear evidence from reliable sources across the ideological spectrum, I strongly oppose use of the descriptor "white supremacy" to describe the alt-right per WP:UNDUE. Reliable sources provide unambiguous evidence that the alt-right does not include white supremacy. If the phrase is included at all, it is best included in a quote in the article's body, as in the previous version of this article." and mentions " a fringe minority of marginally reliable sources with a clear idoelogical bias calling the alt-right white supremacist." (Note that one of the sources used to write for National Review", so they seem to spread across the political spectrum).
I obviously disagree. Not mentioning "white supremacy" doesn't mean we shouldn't mention it, and look at some of the ideologies mentioned in the lead and definition - it's not as though many sources mention them. WP:UNDUE may be OT for this board usually but perhaps not in this argument. I also thought that "According to Rosie Gray, "The alt right’s targets don’t include just liberals, blacks, Jews, women, Latinos, and Muslims, who are all classified a priori as objects of suspicion...The alt right’s real objective, if one can be identified, is to challenge and dismantle mainstream conservatism." [1]" was useful but it was removed as being WP:UNDUE also.
There's a general sourcing problem in that the academic world hasn't paid much attention to this yet, something that I'm guessing may change this year. We really need more eyes on this article, but I'm obviously looking for specific comments related to the use of the term "white supremacism". Doug Weller talk 11:56, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
That has no bearing on this discussion. Whether white supremacy is a subset of, or a different movement than white nationalism does not address the issue of whether or not reliable sources indicate that white supremacy is a part of the alt-right movement. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 23:05, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
References
And yes, Grammar'sLittleHelper, I'm happy with "x includes y believers".For the record, I would be quite happy with that, too. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 13:41, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
What? Sorry Connor, but I'm struggling with what you are saying. Let's start with some links to the sources that say white nationalism is another term for white supremacism. I know some say that there are white supremacists who call themselves white nationalists, but I assume you mean something else. Doug Weller talk 22:04, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
No one has responded to my question about the ADL source yet. Any comments? Doug Weller talk 14:03, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
I want to confirm if we can accept this as reliable source to support these changes. Thank You – GSS ( talk) 08:08, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer Marek has been bulk removing citations to Washington Times, in some cases leaving previously cited material without citation. There has been no talk page discussion on any of the relevant pages. None of the citations removed appear to be regarding anything that requires special scrutiny (one of the citations is for the circulation size of a small newspaper for example) I am unaware of any larger decision which universally dismisses WT. When I asked VM about his action he said "It's enough that it doesn't satisfy the criteria for WP:RS"
Is the WT so unreliable that it can be removed without discussion and leaves material with no citation? If so, presumably it should be blacklisted. Gaijin42 ( talk) 23:53, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, the newspaper is now a full step below direct Unification Church operations - it is in the same "Operations Holdings" group as the New Yorker Hotel Management Company, etc. and a bunch of marine corporations and the like. In short - opinions cited and sourced as opinions from it are generally usable, and direct statements of fact from its "fact articles" are generally usable as statements of fact. Material related in any way to the goals or beliefs of the Unification Church are more problematic - and should likely be regards as "self-published" in that area. Collect ( talk) 14:14, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
Is this iHorror.com's movie review reliable enough to include when mentioning the films of Jack Thomas Smith in Smith's article? Nightscream ( talk) 05:44, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
There is a request for comment about whether a popular TV character should be diagnosed with a "psychosomatic" condition based on a source that is not reliable for medical diagnosis. See Talk:Electromagnetic hypersensitivity#Request for comment. Thanks. Sundayclose ( talk) 17:24, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
I added the following text to the article on Amway however it was removed with the claim none of the sources were reliable.
A similar class action case lodged in Canada was rejected by the court and confirmed on appeal, with costs awarded to Amway and the plaintiffs directed to arbitration. [1] [2] [3]
Searching through the archives there seems to be some debate about the use of law firm published articles as RS. Should the primary source (decision) be used instead? -- Icerat ( talk) 01:14, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
References
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)