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 204 | Archive 205 | Archive 206 | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | → | Archive 210 |
I added “Medical doctors in Brazil, India, Portugal, Singapore and Germany have written about using past life stories to help in resolving emotional issues and medical conditions” The book quoted (Dr Peter Mack, isbn = 878 0 9567887 8 8 Inner Healing Journey: A Medical Perspective 2014) is edited by a medical doctor and contains chapters written by other medical doctors. It is not claiming past life stories resolve a specific condition but they give their personal experiences and views of using it and the healing that resulted. The objection is that "WP:MEDRS applies to this update because its an article about a subject people will have an interest in". My point is WP:MEDRS does not apply because no medical information on resolving any medical condition is given.
A sentence was removed “The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships” this is part of the rambling from an internet site from a critic with no evidence to support it. I added “The technique is included in a textbook (U. James, isbn = 978 1 910272 45 9, Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention, Radcliffe Publishing, 2015, Ch 21} for 10 UK medical schools and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”. The author of the book is professor Ursula James of Robert Gordon University. She is one of the leaders in her field and the text book used as a reference book widely. It is mandatory reading for medical doctors on the MSC course. It has chapters written by psychologists and therapists and chapter devoted to past life regression and its use. It is a secondary source book about past life regression. see http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Hypnosis-Textbook-Practical-Intervention-ebook/dp/B013K8JP8Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454379922&sr=1-1&keywords=ursula+james+hypnosis
This request is to overturn the deletion by KateWishing (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for all your views so perhaps this can be used “Medical doctors in Brazil, India, Portugal, Singapore and Germany have written about their personal views of using past life regression to help in resolving emotional issues and medical conditions” and "The technique is in a chapter in a textbook used in at least one medical school in the UK and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson ( talk • contribs)
I wonder what it is about the subject of Past Life Regression that causes new information on the subject to be dismissed so easily? A simple google search on the author of the Clinical Hypnosis book “Professor Ursula James at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen” would have found on the university website http://www.rgu.ac.uk/news/clinical-hypnosis-introduced-to-support-students/
'Clinical Hypnosis is an exciting area of medical practice and we are delighted Professor James has joined our team. We look forward to working with her to develop new courses for the university as well as innovative ways of alleviating stress and improving student performance. Professor James currently heads a team which teaches clinical hypnosis at 11 medical schools in the UK including Oxford and Cambridge. As well as authoring a number of books including The Clinical Hypnosis Textbook'
Her book has been written specifically for training medical doctors in hypnotherapy at university and I would have thought this counted as a suitable reference book to quote from. Also considering the previous quote that it replaced which had been used for a few years was “The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships” and was from an internet site called the Skeptic Dictionary and was part of a critics rambling with no evidence to support it.
Turning to the other book used as a reference “Inner Healing Journey: A Medical Perspective.” Its got 11 patient case studies by 6 medical doctors( two are psychiatrists) of how they have found past life regression assisted in healing when the traditional medical approach was unhelp. An internet search on the author of the book “Dr Peter Mack, singapore” would have found that he is a practicing general surgeon trained in regression therapy which uses past life regression and he explains how it works in great detail in his books and website see http://www.petermack.sg/articles With a little more diligence and internet searches they would have found the book was sponsored by “Society for Medical Advance and Research with Regression Therapy” which has 11 medical doctors from around the world and two psychologists all who have been trained in using past life regression. see http://www.smar-rt.com/members.htm They may done more searches and found a link to the EARTh Association of Regression Therapy http://www.earth-association.org/recognized-training-programs-recognized-trainers/ and found it creates a worldwide standard and has recognised 11 schools programs and has over 200 members from around the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson ( talk • contribs)
So is all this “psudo science” or something that needs to be taken seriously and included to a balanced views in the article on Past Life Regression. As I have a vested interest its best I withdraw but ask for an editor to pick it up and update the article. While the books mentioned and Dr Peter Mack’s website may be a useful starting point I’m willing to help if asked. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 11:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a book of fiction that she wrote and as the universities she teaches in are not interested in her personal activities why should Wikipedia. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The following article was written by Mário Simões, Professor of Psychiatry and of Consciousness Sciences, Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon, Portugal. He is the Director of the Post-Graduation Course in Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis and of the Laboratory for Mind-Matter Interaction with Therapeutic Intention. The article was published in a peer reviewed ‘The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies’
‘Being symbolic in nature, imagination permits representations of things that do not exist or which are approximations of reality. It is a capacity that allows elaboration of concepts or precognitions which would be impossible to realize in any other way. The idea of exploring reincarnation is close to the concept that a patient must re-experience the primeval drama to exhaust the emotions from it. It does not matter if the experiences are true or not, what is important is an event is experienced in a personized way.’
Simoes, M. Altered States of Consciousness and Psychotherapy, The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 2002, v 21 p150 [2]
So now can we start to have a balanced article on Past Life Regression. If not perhaps a controversial subject like this is to much for Wikipedia and it may be best for the whole article to be removed. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 12:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
A balanced view means talking peer reviewed secondary source information that have different views. So we already have a psychologist called Luis Cordón in his published book on psychology saying past life regression may cause delusions. Now we have Professor Ursula James in her book with a chapter saying that past life regression technique is helpful in healing. We also now have Mário Simões, Professor of Psychiatry and of Consciousness Sciences saying in a peer reviewed article that it does not matter if past lives are real or not because they clear emotions in a personal way.
The Skeptics Dictionary is not peer reviewed and was written by Robert Todd who is qualified in philosophy. This is a totally different subject from psychology or psychiatry which Luis Cordon, Ulusa James and Mário Simões are all experts in. As this part of the article is about the use of the techniques of past life regression the views of Robert Todd are simply not relevant.
We also have it stated on the University of Aberdeen website that Professor Ursula James will be using her book in several universities to teach medical doctors including Oxford and Cambridge. So I think it is safe to remove a skeptics personal comment ‘The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships.’
Guy - if you looked at the index of the Clinical Hypnosis Textbook version 3 (the lastest one) past life regression has a whole chapter (ch 21 pages 283 to 294). About your comment ‘some wacky folks who believe in it’. Did you know the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life 2009 survey [3], found 51% of the world believe in reincarnation as do 25% of American Christians.
As I said before lets get this article balanced with peer reviewed secondary courses by experts in their field. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 20:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The therapeutic perspective as explained by professor Marion Simone is that it does not matter if past life stories are real or not, it’s the power the stories to assist in healing that is important.
On the question of proof that reincarnation is real you can start with looking at consciousness surviving physical death. Research by Dr Pim van Lommel and his colleagues from Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem, Holland, over 13 years investigated the experiences of 344 heart patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest. All had been clinically dead at some point during their treatment. Of these 62 patients reported a near-death experience. During this period many had no electrical activity of the brain. This meant that their memory recall of the experience could not be explained by traditional scientific explanations. This was published in the peer medical journal Lancet. (Van Lommel et al, Near-death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest; a prospective study in the Netherlands, The Lancet, 15 Dec 2001.) Another area supporting consciousness surviving death and reincarnating is the work of Dr Ian Stevenson, the former head of the department of parapsychology at the University of Virginia. He has specialized in collecting the past life stories from young children around the world by interviewing them and all the witnesses to their experience. This includes looking for inconsistency or fraud by doing follow-up visits later to check for signs of any personal gains that could account for deception. In all, Ian Stevenson and his colleagues have painstakingly collected over 2,000 cases from a wide range of cultures and religions around the world.
Whilst this may suggest reincarnation may be possible, the other side of the coin is what evidence is there that reincarnation does not exist? A Wikipedia balanced view surely should be neutral and present evidence for and against. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Whilst this may suggest reincarnation may be possible, the other side of the coin is what evidence is there that reincarnation does not exist?I have it in my files. I will upload it to wikipedia 24 hours after you provide proof that I am not God. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
MjolnirPants you may be God or you may not, all I'm asking is that if you have peer reviewed secondary source evidence and not an individual's view that reincarnation does not exists share it, because it may need to go into the article too. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 13:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is surely about presenting information in a balanced way, and with controversial topics like this definitely not with a cultural bias as GrammarsLittleHelper points out. So in the examples above I've shown there is some scientifically gathered evidence suggesting that reincarnation may exist. But so far no one has resented any evidence that reincarnation does not exists. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 18:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention is WP:SPS and therefore not reliable. Also of note, psychology is a branch of medicine, and any claim that past life regression "helps some people" is inherently a medical claim, subject to the usual standards. It would be no different from saying that "eating prunes cured some patients of cancer" and MEDRS applies. Geogene ( talk) 21:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the process of writing balanced articles on a controversial subject like this in Wikipedia are just not working. Evidence from experts in their field is dismissed yet information from a skeptic dictionary by a non expert included. Does anyone know how issues like this can get flagged up to those in charge of Wikipedia, or even the creator of Wikipedia? Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 15:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
MjolnirPants I agree the use of past life regression as a therapy needs to be separated from the question of ‘is reincarnation real’. If you read the WP article on ‘past life regression’ you will find a chapter on therapy called 'techniques' and on reincarnation called 'source of the memories'. So both areas need addressing. About therapy – it was explained above that a therapy does not need to be from “medically reliable sources” because most medical professionals have not been trained in past life regression or had there own personal experience. Just sharing their personal views is not good enough. So we also need to also turn to psychologists and psychotherapists and with quotes from reliable sources. Above I mentioned two professors who are leaders in there field and 6 medical doctors trained in past life regression that take the view that past life regression is helpful whether past lives and real or not. About past lives being real – currently we have the personal views of skeptics that they are cryptomnesia etc. OK we can leave this in because that’s one side although some of the refereces are out of print and not verifiable. But we need to include evidence of a professor from a US university who studied over 2000 children’s spontaneous past lives, many just stating to talk, that cannot be explained away with cryptomnesia. Also the work with near death experience research published in the medical journal Lancet. This is what I call balanced, leaving out one side or the other is unbalanced or subjecting the article to the personal views of the editors. If we cannot all agree with this then it needs escalating to those that manage Wikipedia Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 12:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
About therapy – it was explained above that a therapy does not need to be from “medically reliable sources” because most medical professionals have not been trained in past life regression or had there own personal experience.
Above I mentioned two professors who are leaders in there field and 6 medical doctors trained in past life regression that take the view that past life regression is helpful whether past lives and real or not.MEDRS requires published reviews (of clinical trials, case studies and primary studies), and prefers it when said review is both the newest such review, and several years old, as this means the results are as iron-clad as possible. Medical claims require much better sourcing than any other subject on this site (with biographical claims being the second) because people will cite and refer to Wikipedia when making medical decisions. We cannot do anything to lead them astray. So find a 5 year old review of a large number of studies and trials of PLRT which has passed peer review and been published in a reputable medical journal, and where there are no more recent reviews contradicting it, and cite that. If you can't find it, then you can't make the claim here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
http://powerbase.info/index.php/Mark_Kennedy:_A_chronology_of_his_activities [4] appears to be a Wiki - used for:
As well as a number of other Wikipedia articles.
Is it a reliable source for the claims attributed to it and to claims made about it on http://spannerfilms.net/undercovers (which does not appear, on its face, to meet WP:RS either)
I fear I mistrust Wikis - especially ones which do not use "reliable sources" for claims, but rely on facts provided by involved persons (?). Note the subject appears to be a living person. Collect ( talk) 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
To use it we'd need so much caution it might not be worthit. People should know a source on Wikipedia is good, or at least one they can't have been faulted for trusting. If this source turns out to be wrong about something, we'd be the sheep for trusting it, it seems. 172.58.224.235 ( talk) 06:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find a previous discussion on this site [5]. Specifically, it's being used to source a year of birth and birthplace for the BLP of Frank Dux, a controversial figure with a history of fabrication. Most things about him are self-published. This site is third party, but I question the reliability of it. Opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Any issues with using an interview that was on the Perfect Sound Forever website, furious.com, as an external link in a music article? 63.143.230.53 ( talk) 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Our article states: "Dalessandro's Steaks & Hoagies is a cheesesteak eatery that was founded in 1960 on Wendover St in Roxborough." For reasons that I can only ascribe to WP:BOMBARDMENT, this NYT article, the local CBS affiliate and this from The Daily Meal are cited.
This is the lede sentence in the article. (Yes, I know the MOS says we generally do not cite sources in the lede.)
The NYT article tells a brief story about the author eating there with his father. The only real "claim" in the sentence is that it was founded in 1960, which is stated further on in the article, without a source. The closest the NYT source gets is that the author's dad ate there "in the early '60s". CBS says this it's been there for "a very long time". "The Daily Meal" has nothing to say about the date.
Two questions: 1) Are any of these sources reliable for the claim that it was founded in 1960? 2) Is there any reason to cite these sources in the lede? - SummerPhD v2.0 02:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added the official site as a source for the date, in the body of the article. Any reason to keep these three non-source sources in the lede sentence? - SummerPhD v2.0 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: There are a number of independent sources that confirm the founding date of 1960:
I would like an advisory opinion on whether it is ok to use the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in the lede of a high visibility article, as is done here [7]. Thanks, Athenean ( talk) 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The book Blown for Good is self-published by "Blown for Good, Inc." See the publication page. As such, it is a self-published book. How much credibility should Wikipedia grant it? Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 23:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
References
I noticed this website being used as a source; more specifically, a blogger with a handle being used as a source for a quote. I am not sure how we land on the topic of how reliable the reviews and statements of anonymous contributors. I've searched through the RSN archives, and it doesn't appear that this has been discussed before. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
While reviewing the article for GA, I informed the nominator that this source, this one, and this one used to verifiy a court battle, new label change, and an annual songwriting compeition held in her country, looked like a Romanian version of TMZ and subsequenly asked him what made them reliable, for which the nominator proceceed by informing me that "the newspaper also concepted a television show which is very popular in Romania".
For this source, I didn't know anything about the website or author so I decided to further investigate the author and found that his his 'about me' page stated that he has a BA in an unknown field of study and his Twitter account says that he is a freelancer with no credibility to his name anywhere. The nominator used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line on me and also told me that the two reviewers who reviewed his past GA articles with the same source said nothing about it.
For this and this source I couldn't find anything on the website that gave me any reassurance that it was a reliable source so I researched the author and found a blog he uses for people to ask him questions on various topics and found nothing else on his qualifications.
And finally this source I too couldn't find anything on and when I researched the author I came across his personal website where he likes to write about the "private lives of celebrities" and gives no creditablilty as to where he gets his information from. Best, – jona ✉ 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd encourage RSN regulars to take a look at Talk:Laura_Branigan#Consensus_discussion and give their views on the use of sources re this person's birth year. Many thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the Han Chinese married to Hmong women. This section has no credible support. I kindly as you to remove it.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.140.90 ( talk • contribs)
Leith Abou Fadel and his blog Al-Masdar News ( link, link) have frequently been used as a source for battles and victories in the Syrian Civil War, most notably the map at Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. However, on forums discussing the war, Fadel and Al-Masdar have a reputation for highly biased coverage and very poor reliability. For example:
"Also known as the chief (and one of the only) editor at Almasdarnews, a platform banned from this subreddit, Leith has been famous for making outrageous claims that are rarely backed up and posted on his blog, Almasdarnews. The issue is that he is often viewed as a good source by people who are not familiar with this conflict as he poses his platform (Almasdar) as authoritative and as a press outlet, whereas it is just similar to a blog. Leith does however have some contacts within the Syrian government but never quotes them or posts proof of their messages and communications. He has been very infamous for making clickbait titles in order to get more traffic to his blog, often making very extreme announcements such as the call of the start of the offensive for Palmyra 7 times or the splitting of Ghouta a similar amount of times. He is very pro-regime and will not shy away from posting outright false information about the Coalition forces, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
Overall you only want to follow Leith if you want breaking news all day long with smileyfaces and wishful thinking about government achievements.
Accuracy: Very poor
Supports: Government" ( link)
His reporting's accuracy has also been questioned by the New York Times ( link).
Could we get a reliable source check for this? Thanks. NeatGrey ( talk) 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Open University Press's website says, "McGraw-Hill Create™ allows you to create customized eBooks and print books to support your teaching. Create the ultimate book for your course by selecting chapters from different OpenUP books and adding your own notes to create a book that fits perfectly to your module outline." If you follow the link that says, What is McGraw-Hill create?, it says, "You can even select third-party content like readings, articles, cases, videos, and more... Combine content from multiple sources access multiple disciplines and even integrate your own content such as a syllabus, class notes, or exercises... Include readings, cases, or assignments to use in conjunction with textbook chapters... Add your syllabus or lecture notes to the textbook... Join the text and the student study guide together in one text."
A couple of books cited on Body psychotherapy were published through Open University Press. Several of the other sources, such as Röhricht, cite the books published via Open UP. I'm pretty sure the original source is WP:SELFPUB but I couldn't find previous discussions about it on wikipedia or really anywhere else before. Thanks, PermStrump (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That whole section is sourced to "The Stewarts of Blackhall and Ardgowan," J.L. Olar BA, Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies: The Octavian Society, 1997–2000. You can see the back issue indexed here; housed by this group that describes itself as "amateur and professional scholars who focus in the fields of chivalry, genealogy, heraldry, history before 1700, and royalty & nobility"
Thoughts on whether or not, this is a reliable source for Barony_of_Blackhall#Barons_of_Blackhall_since_1395? -- Jytdog ( talk) 06:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This source [9], is currently being used on the political status for the 2016 United States Election. A number of editors though have questioned how reliable it is Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Delegate count as the delegate count differs from major sources like NYT/CNN/AP. So my question is should this source even be used? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Would the French film website 'psychovision.net' [10] be considered a reliable review source (for a related movie article reference)? Thank you for your thoughts. Carnymike ( talk) 08:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This source is a copyright violation scan of US Airways magazine. It says, about getting the "real" cheesesteak experience, "You must wait in a long line, along walls tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities, and have a surly staff serve you." It then mentions Jim's Steaks. Is this a reliable source for saying specifically about Jim's, "Jim's has been frequented by celebrities. Headshots, photos, and autographs of celebrities that have dined at the restaurant can be seen on the wall."
1) Is US Airways magazine a reliable source?
2) Should we link to the scan?
3) Does the source support the material? - SummerPhD v2.0 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I also posted about this here, but I might get more traction here. See Xiaopin (literary genre)#References for an example of my problem. This could get kind of icky if I (and other users!) keep doing it without some discussion, consensus and standardized guidelines. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It's hit or miss. Generally, if it is a physically published book by any medium-to-large size publisher, there will be page numbers because the electronic copy which is used to make the print book will also be used to make the ebook, and it will retain the page breaks. For self-published ebook authors, it all depends on what software they write in (there are templates, for example, for Microsoft Word that will place page breaks at appropriate locations for hardcover or paperback books) and what formatting options they use. The only 'default' option is the loc and chapters. You can check any book by doing a search for a common word like "the". If the results give you location and page number, it (obviously) has page numbers. If you can't access the page number any other way, just do a search for the passage you're citing and get it that way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Key issue here is document uploaded to ScribD. Secondary issue is a second insufficiently cited ref, used inappropriately.
As an occupational lung disease, it is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating). [1] [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
-- Jytdog ( talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, please do comment on the reliability of documents uploaded to ScribD, and what the heck should be done with the 2nd source. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Can we simply use a different source? Say this book by the National Research Council? Gamaliel ( talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Berylliosis is an occupational disease. [1] Relevant occupations are those where beryllium is mined, processed or converted into metal alloys, or where machining of metals containing beryllium and recycling of scrap alloys occurs. [2]
References
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.
Currently, there is disagreement on the argument from authority page over whether Carl Sagan's book can be cited. The page quotes his book The Demon-Haunted World saying "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'...Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else". It also cites a biology education journal that discusses an example of an appeal to authority that lead the scientific community into error, and concludes "we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority". However these were removed and disputed by an editor because the "Cited sources are not logicians, thus not reliable sources on the subject of this article". I contend that since these are sources that're about the method of science that address arguments from authority, they are reliable sources for how much weight these sorts of argument carry in science specifically.
So, are these reliable sources for the article? FL or Atlanta ( talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
lol it looks like the philosophy majors are out in force today. On science we trust scientists. They're natural philosophers. If a philosopher - who's work can't be put to the test and which gets thrown into a journal to be forgotten and never actially does anything - disagrees with a scientist, who's work we can actually test and which makes predictions, we should go with the scientist every time. Include both but the scientists take precendece for the article. 172.58.224.134 ( talk) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Do we have reason to believe that Michelle Goldberg is an expert on anti-semitism, anti-semitic tropes, the Zeitgeist Movement, the Zeitgeist film series, or the movie producer Peter Joseph? Some editors here insist that her comments on the Zeitgeist film are factual and must be in the article. I am concerned that her remarks are non-factual (pure opinion) and border-line libelous about a living person, and we should not be repeating them in WP. The remarks are particularly obtuse because the films do not mention Jewish people or Israel, and the real experts on antisemitism (the ADL) make no similar pronouncement. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 06:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: The purpose of the RSN is to establish whether a particular source is reliable for a particular claim. Since the claim is Ms G's opinion of the 'movement' and film, the answer must be yes, she is RS. We cannot answer general questions about the merits or judiciousness of her judgements, which is what the phrasing of this RSN asks us to do. Pincrete ( talk) 01:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course, if Zeitgeist were in any way antisemitic, every RS mentioning Zeitgeist would mention its antisemitic overtones.That is one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen here. Not only is it OR, it's a straight up informal fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
As ever, this is opinion which must be cited and ascribed as such. I note that the "anti-Semitism" bit seems to be in reaction to her position that the movement appears to be one predicting "communism" which is likely thus related to her opinions here. Collect ( talk) 11:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Resolution: Goldberg's statement applies to the first movie, not the Zeitgeist Movement. Previous editors tried to tie that remark to the movement by the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, inserting the language that the first movie "inspired" the movement. But that is contradicted by the Orlando Sentinel source. [15] The Movement was inspired by Jacque Fresco, not Joseph's first movie. I have therefore removed the statement. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 19:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/11139#.VwO64I-cHxM is used as a source for the following claim about Luke Harding:
As near as I can tell, this is, at best, editorial commentary by Richard de Lacy on what appears to be a red-top "news site" which includes vast amounts about sex and "adult entertainment" and the like, and interesting views on paedophilia etc. Is this a valid fact source for the claims made? Collect ( talk) 13:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that this link https://business.highbeam.com/411456/article-1G1-208423917/key-releases-260909 is being used as a source on Wikipedia articles. It claims to be an archived copy of a page from Music Week magazine to substantiate album sales claims, but I find it hard to believe it is. It isn't even a reproduction of a page, simply a lot of text claiming to be so. It could have been written by anyone and I think is impossible to verify it. Should we be allowing this as a source? 90.205.153.185 ( talk) 23:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
In many physical albums there are text that describes who did what on the album (who wrote the lyrics, describes performers, who mastered it et.c.) are those considered reliable sources or not? An editor claims that if a release is on Discogs then the liner notes are not reliable as Discogs is considered to not be reliable. // Liftarn ( talk) 09:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't have touched this website, since as a WP:SPS I would not immediately assume it was reliable. However, it appears to be generally accepted as reliable on wikipedia for information on the Catholic Church. I now have to ask for opinions on whether we stop using it as a reliable source on wikipedia.
Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands has been on my watchlist for a while, this is a parish covering British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic. On April 2, an Argentine editor began editing the article to remove any reference to South Georgia and other BOT, claiming these are under the diocese of the Bishop of Rio Gallegos. There is a long discussion on what was essentially one editors WP:OR trying to dispute what the website said.
Having failed to remove the content, he has now badgered the website owner to change the entry to say what he wanted. If a website can change information due to lobbying like this to influence content on wikipedia, I have to ask how we can ever consider it reliable as a source? Please note in Talk:Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands the editor concerned openly admits to contacting the website owner to change the content to what he wanted. W C M email 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, please forgive me my typing errors because English is not my native language. I need to clarify the tendentious comments WCM, he not telling the truth in saying that I claim that Georgias and South Sandwich Islands are under the diocese of Rio Gallegos. I make clear that I am strictly neutral when edit in Wikipedia. They can see that I have almost 89,000 editions in several projects of the encyclopedia. WCM also not telling the truth when he said that I pressed the webmaster of GCatholic for him to change the content of what I wanted. At the beginning of the discussion with WCM I told him I would contact GC requesting information, also I did it with the website of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands. The second still did not answer the first answered me and changed the content of your website freely without me suggest what to put on, just gave the same information I put in the discussion of the article. WCM bases its entire opinion that the Falkland Islands Dependencies did not exist in 1952, however it is easily verifiable that is not right and I showed it effortlessly. WCM rejects my speech because of my nationality.
The encyclopedic article Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands said that these islands belonged to the apostolic prefecture. I wanted to check and found that the source was GCatholic. This web site does not mention where the data obtained. I also checked that can not be found on other Internet websites say the same. I verified that the papal bulls do not mention these islands. The other source is used in Wikipedia Catholic Hierarchy. This website does not mention to these islands and bases its information on the Annuario Pontificio. I also verified that the diocese of Rio Gallegos claims jurisdiction over those islands. In view of that, the information can not be maintained while certainly not clarify the matter.
As for the reliability of the source, as I said there are two websites that are updated daily with respect to changes in the Catholic hierarchy: Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic. Both are widely used in the various Wikipedia projects. Obviously no one is infallible and they make mistakes, as do all websites. In both cases I have mentioned them and they have responded mistakes and sometimes I changed the information. When both websites differ it is necessary to verify the information from other sources. In general the information provided verifiable, but in some cases it is not, for example when it comes to these islands, and others like Bouvet Island.-- Nerêo ( talk) 14:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Source:
Context:
Question:
Thank you for your comments. Borsoka ( talk) 02:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wiki-psyc reshaped personal boundaries last year (including renaming it as setting boundaries). The changes were heavily underpinned by a cite to a single webpage - http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries.
The http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries webpage does not have any cites. It is also more of an annex to the main subject of the website - borderline personality disorder. Setting boundaries currently gives huge weight and credibility to this single reference - it underpins the current name of this article, the first three sentences in the lead and much of Setting boundaries#Process.
I can find nothing relevant to the author of that web page, "R. Skip Johnson", in Google Books or Scholar.
R. Skip Johnson is simply listed here but without any named position for http://bpdfamily.com. It does not say that he has any relevant academic or clinical expertise.
I believe http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries does not pass WP:RS especially as so much weight is given to it. There are 38 other different cites given in setting boundaries, many from contributors with relevant academic and clinical knowledge eg John Townsend (author), Charles Whitfield, Robin Skynner and Henry Cloud. -- Penbat ( talk) 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Article: BLP William Lane Craig. Content: "William Lane Craig is a philosopher..."
One user disputes that these sources calling him a philosopher are truly independent. Allegedly, the sources calling him a professor of philosophy are not to be trusted as independent because the individual himself might have written them. No evidence for the charge has been provided, and yet they remain resolutely skeptical.
Sources: University websites listing him as a professor of philosophy, and/or in the philosophy department:
Additional sources from HighBeam Research-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
References
He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and a doctorate in theology from the University of Munich.
William Lane Craig, research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif.
AMONG THE BRIGHTEST LIGHTS ON THE GOD-DEBATE circuit shines the Christian philosopher and apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig.
Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has slammed Armstrong's ideas about God's nature.
Christian apologist and Emory University professor William Lane Craig.
Philosopher William Lane Craig of the Talbot School of Theology
D'Souza has been joined by Christian apologists Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig
prominent design-theorists such as...William Lane Craig
Scheduled speakers included...philosopher William Lane Craig
Evangelical philosopher and Discovery Institute fellow William Lane Craig
Craig is distinguished philosopher known professionally for his work in philosophy of time and philosophy of religion...a reputation as one of the world's foremost Christian apologists.
The tensed theory, which has many versions, is advocated by such philosophers as William Lane Craig
Philosopher William Lane Craig's chapter, "Naturalism and Intelligent Design," asks:
Take the Kalam cosmological argument - first outlined by the medieval Muslim theologian al-Ghazali, and nowadays formulated by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig, perhaps the best-known Christian apologist in the country
Christian apologists like William Lane Craig
" Team" is a new single released by Iggy Azalea. According to the writing credits on Tidal where the single was released: 12 writers wrote the song ( See here for a third-party source). However, Azalea herself has said on Twitter that this is not accurate, specifically referring to the Wikipedia article of the song ( See her tweet here). According to her, only 7 writers were involved.
It is likely that the 5 people she claims did not write the song, did not write the song's lyrics. But they have been credited as writers for other reasons which Azalea has most likely overlooked; 3 of them are credited for the sample of " Back that Azz Up" the song uses, while the other two are producers most likely credited for composing a melody (this is common practice in pop music). My view is that that I highly doubt her record label would release the single accompanied by incorrect writing credits. She has most likely overlooked that the writers of "Back that Azz Up" are credited because "Team" samples the song, and the other two producers most likely credited as composers of a melody not a lyric.
In such a situation which is the best source to use?
I can see this potentially causing an edit war at the article page especially with Azalea's tweet referring to it. Instagram Camera ( talk)
Is it a reliable source for musical commentary?-- MaranoFan ( talk) 12:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Provided as always that opinions must be cited and ascribed as opinions, of course. "Commentary" is the key word here. Collect ( talk) 15:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
LifeZette seems to have an editorial board (including Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham). It is currently cited as a source for one of (perennial US Presidential candidate) Rick Santorum's favorite songs.
I am not seeing much non-promotional mention of LifeZette online beyond the interest in Laura Ingraham building her brand. I'm also wondering if Ingraham Media might actually be less a news/opinion source than the front end of some publicity operation, in which case should it be used as a source for data even as fluffy as this. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I acknowledge the content of this edit is super-trivial, but I am concerned that low-reliability sources like this one are used to inject PR into Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
All that was said and concluded about Scribd (above) could be said and concluded about Wikileaks. If there is any editorial oversight on the content on Wikileaks, it is not in evidence and cannot be examined or verified. Does Wikipedia put any credibility in the documents on Wikileaks? Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 07:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
https://books.google.it/books?id=jG9cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA305&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The source is not accepted because ostensibly the date of the first mention of the Ducagini de Arbania (late VIIth century) seems to be too removed back in time (I would add "according to whom?"), ignoring the fact that the chronicle is perfectly coherent as a historical account both in space and time in all its details, reason for wich Makushev, Gegaj and N.G.L Hammond all accept the source as valid.
I would like to add that inbetween the date of the source and the mention of Albanians at the beginning of XIth century, there is another source just recently discovered wrote by the historical ecclesiast and priest Daniele Farlati that specifically mention Albanians as inhabitants of Epirus Nova in the IXth century:( http://i68.tinypic.com/34674ae.png)
"Leo Sapiens, qui sæculo nono rerum in oriente potiebatur, in sua expositione de nominibus urbium & locorum &c. incolas Epiri novæ appellari ait Albanitas.". Herakliu ( talk) 09:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Legends and pseudohistory, get it? Herakliu has the wrong answers to everything, "you lie", "it is a typo", etc. I've asked him countless times to be constructive, but all he does is to refuse the facts and insult. The stories are partially based on the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (mentioning Radoslav Belo, etc), a source that is NOT used in scholarship for early medieval history. King Radoslav (of the Kingdom of Bosnia) rules Bosnia, Albania, Dalmatia and Croatia since 528? Since neither of you are familiar with early medieval Balkans, I'd like to ask another user what he thinks. @ Cplakidas: Is Vikentije Makushev's manuscript reliable? It says, among other outrageous events, that the Dukagjini of Arbania attacked the Kingdom of Bosnia in the 7th century. — this, Herakliu wants to use in Origin of the Albanians and Dukagjini family, and then, I assume, in all other Albanian-history-related articles. -- Zoupan 13:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The automated retroactive blacklisting of "archive.is" links has become an automated work generator for humans. Cyberbot II is flagging many articles for human attention. See, for example, [19]. Here, it's blacklisting the link even though it's just an "archiveurl" field and the main URL (to a CNN new story) is still good. I can see blacklisting "archive.is", because it's abusable, but doing so blindly and retroactively and expecting humans to fix the problems is a good way to lose editors. If this task is to be automated, it needs to be automated better. John Nagle ( talk) 19:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I recently came across some edits by Karmaclub, who appears to be an employee or paid editor for the lyrics website Genius per edits like this one.
The problem here is that anyone can annotate Genius, so I'm really concerned about it being used to back up claims like this one, where it's used to back up claims that Lennon was inspired by Lewis Carroll. Obviously he was, but I don't think that a wiki-style annotation website would be the best place for this. I ended up replacing it with a Rolling Stones article that makes the same claim. There are also some slightly questionable links like this one where it's used to back up producer credits for an album.
My question is basically this: because anyone can annotate Genius, can it be used as a source for anything? Could it even be used as a source for even the most basic of claims such as producer or lyrics mentions? If the answer to either is no, would it be a valid external link?
I'm just concerned about this. Even if there is some sort of oversight, I don't think that it'd be nearly strict enough to be really considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also, if we're going to be using it to back up very basic claims then my thought is that there has to be some sort of better source for this, like Allmusic (for basic credits), articles from places already deemed RS, and so on. I've asked Karmaclub to not add more links to Wikipedia until that point. In all fairness they're correcting links rather than inserting them as far as I can see, but there's still the problem that they're making a ton of edits surrounding Genius, to the point where I initially mistook it for spam. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not posting any new links to Genius.com. I am correcting bad links to outdated URL's (changing RapGenius.com to Genius.com). That is 100% of the scope of the project. Feel free to QC any of my edits...that's what you will find. Karmaclub ( talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
BTW, both rapgenius.com (redirecting to rap.genius.com) and genius.com are crowdsourced repositories of lyrics and used in wikipedia as refs to lyrics. Lyrics pages like this one do not have evidence of copyright. As such, they are clearly copyright violations and therefore must be blacklisted. Does anyone know how to do this? Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
For your reference: Rap Genius Website Agrees to License With Music Publishers Karmaclub ( talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Is this reliable? — Calvin999 09:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, is this source reliable enough to be used for establishing the notability of the characters presented there? Is it creditable for selecting the "Best Dressed Iranians"? Please consider that the characters are those of opposing the current Iranian government (they are not selected among all Iranian) and the website has noted to "battles over hejab and the Basij" which shows the level of discrimination. Mhhossein ( talk) 05:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
"Fashion articles" are fluff at best, presenting opinions about fashions, and are not a valid source for factual claims of any ilk no matter the publisher. Even The New York Times Fashion section is fluff, ask any editor there <g>. Collect ( talk) 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Are audited financials considered primary or secondary sources when they are being used as a cite to budget spending by a movie or show? The debate stems from the talk page for Avengers Age of Ultron. At issue are the audited financial statements of the production company set up to produce a certain film. The audited financials in question were also reported in a Forbes Contributor article (held to be reliable based on the credentials of the writer) and Politico.
But the language on the reliable sources examples page notes: "Accounts and Notes to the Accounts in an annual report, which have been independently audited, can be considered secondary sources about the organization, and have some level of reliability. The process of audit provides a degree of editorial oversight although the statement by the auditors may contain caveats which should be borne in mind when using the material." This begs the question, can we cite the filings as reliable secondary sources? The "Full Accounts" for these productions (in this case Avengers Age of Ultron, production company Assembled Productions II) lists the production spending for various periods of production. For example, the period ending May 15th 2015 shows that Avengers AOU had a cost of sales (the production spend) in the amount of 62.7 million GBP. Can we cite these amounts as coming from a reliable secondary source--i.e. the audited financial accounts hosted on a UK government website? Depauldem ( talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I have posted a question to the Help desk (under section " Agnes Repplier bibliography"), and it was suggested that I inquire here as well. My question can be read/replied to there. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks ( talk) 00:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Caroline Bliss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would this be considered a reliable source for information about the personal life of Caroline Bliss. Western Morning News seems reliable enough, but the use of the pen name "This is Devon" by the author makes me wonder if this is a WP:NEWSBLOG or some kind of reader submission. Even if it is a reliable source, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for a BLP. Anyway, the source was added by another editor and I was just trying to clean up the bare url and the related text. If this is considered reliable and not WP:CIRCULAR, then it could possibly be used to cite other information in the article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
JzG insists on removing [20] the section in the article What the Bleep Do We Know on the individuals who cmt in the movie citing they are not significant to the article. I don't feel I can argue that kind of logic and have removed myself, but also hate to see the article unilaterally stripped of this information./content. Please feel free to look in if interested. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 13:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
This concerns the page R2-45
Tony Ortega used to be the editor of ''Village Voice''. He wrote many articles about the Church of Scientology that were published there and in other papers. Eventually, he was dismissed from the Voice reportedly because he was spending too much time on Scientology articles rather than the work the Voice preferred he do. He now runs a personal web page, tonyortega.org, on which he posts a personal blog about Scientology, called The Underground Bunker. There is no editorial oversight in evidence on that sight -- just Ortega. An audio recording has appeared there that is allegedly part of an L. Ron Hubbard recording. The editors on the R2-45 page want to use that recording to support the claim that Hubbard advocated murder of his enemies and the Church uses threats of murder to intimidate people, and it is based on rather thin evidence. These are criminal accusations that have never been tried in a court of law. The links the editors want to use are this and this. Ortega's text suggests Ortega does little fact checking but merely reports whatever is said to him that confirms his bias. Question: Ortega may be an expert on some aspects of Scientology, but does everything he posts on his web page become true and reliable in the eyes of Wikipedia? (There are also copyright issues in this link, but I am not sure this is the place to bring it up.) Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 06:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Involved, but concur with Jzg. Ortega's discussion of Wikileaks tape meets RS, can be summarized with proper attribution. But also concur with Sfarney that it would be extremely inappropriate to state as fact in wiki-voice that 'Hubbard advocated murder of his enemies'. Feoffer ( talk) 01:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent events suggest that Ortega is carefully monitoring his presence as a source on Wikipedia, and tailoring his blog to serve that purpose, possibly in coordination with WP editors. Here is the scene:
Wikipedia page
R2-45 contains a link to a
tonyorteg.org blog entry. Until two days ago, that blog page included an embedded 3-minute tape that was purportedly a segment from a copyrighted L.Ron Hubbard lecture that was probably copyrighted, in everyone's opinion. Editors were discussing that copyvio issue above on April 11 -- only two days ago. The snapshot of that page archived on
March 24, 2016 contains the text and other signs of a media inclusion, but the archive does not include the copyrighted recording. I filed a copyvio query on April 12. On April 13, 2016,
Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#R2-45 OTRS answered with the opinion that Wikipedia should not link to that page. Today we find that Ortega has modified his blog entry to suit the requirements of Wikipedia's copyright policy, substituting a fixed image of a Colt 45 pistol in the position where previously the recording was embedded. Note that the page still bears the words, "We have about three minutes of it for you in a recording". The speed of Ortega's response to the OTRS opinion copyright problem query suggests that our own Wikpedia editors are working closely with Ortega to tailor the tonyortega.org blog so that it can serve as a source for Wikipedia. As noted before on this forum, when a source is modifying and tailoring the source literature to suit Wikipedia in cooperation with Wikipedia editors, it is not reliable. I would like to hear the opinion of other editors.
Grammar'sLittleHelper (
talk) 16:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe sources below are sufficient for establishing notability of Draft:Sabrina Ho (何超盈). What are your thoughts?
Source 1
Phoenix News Media Limited article http://ent.ifeng.com/a/20151026/42515641_0.shtml
This source comes from a publicly listed mainstream media company (FENG:US). The entire source provides in depth coverage of Sabrina Ho's work and charities
Source 2
Oriental Daily News article http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/entertainment/20151226/00282_029.html
Oriental Daily News is a mainstream Hong Kong newspaper established in 1969 (see Oriental Daily News). The source covers Sabrina Ho's history and involvement with art, along with her aspirations for her newly formed companies
Source 3
Wenweipo Newspaper http://paper.wenweipo.com/2016/01/08/RW1601080001.htm
Wenweipo is a mainstream Hong Kong newspaper established in 1948 (see Wen Wei Po). The source has in depth coverage of Sabrina Ho's career, education, artistic influences and future aspirations
Source 4
NetEase Beijing http://fashion.163.com/15/1228/15/BBUCA7SM00264MK3.html
NetEase is a publicly listed media company on NASDAQ (NASDAQ:NTES) with over 18 years history (see NetEase). The article has in depth coverage of Sabrina Ho's education, her new art auction company and her contributions to the art community
Thanks! Angrylala ( talk) 03:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm currently at an edit-a-thon and one of the attendees had a question that I wanted some more feedback on.
The question deals with the BJS and the survey data they collected. He wanted to know how much of the BJS is usable and in what ways it's usable. I think that any of the data would be usable since they're a fairly authoritative source, both on the results and the methodology they use to collect the data, since they detail their process. I believe that it should be OK depending on how it's phrased - saying stuff like "the BJS found that..." and "the BJS has stated that their process is...", where both would state direct findings via comments and summaries from the sources themselves.
What do you guys think? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Is http://www.newsweek.com/assange-how-guardian-milked-edward-snowdens-story-323480?rx=us (an opinion column, labeled as such by Newsweek), by Julian Assange a reliable source for the following claims of fact in a BLP:
And is the Private Eye labeling of Harding a claim of fact that he is a plagiarist to be made in Wikipedia's voice? (noting that PE is a satirical magazine). Collect ( talk) 22:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
My view is that neither can support a claim like in the voice of the encyclopedia. I don't think Assange's claims are sufficient for more than saying "Julian Assange accused this guy of plagiarism when he had a bug in his ear about a story of his". It's possible Newsweek doesn't like to get sued for accusing someone of plagiarism, so it's actually true. If that's the case we should be able to find some better sourcing (look into Ames and Levine?) to support it. Assuming he did plagiarize all that and we can find better evidence for it I don't see a problem w/ noting that PE awarded him "plagiarist of the year". Protonk ( talk) 10:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Article says his family has been traced to "American and Irish, French, Scottish, English, Welsh, German and Swiss ancestry that has been traced back 1,400 years by Ancestry.com,". I thought we'd agreed this wasn't a reliable source - and in a BLP? Doug Weller talk 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me if any of these sources are reliable? FN1, FN2, FN3, FN4, FN5, FN6, FN7, and FN8. Thanks, – jona ✉ 14:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the book International Directory of Company Histories a reliable source for information on a company's history? The publisher is St. James Press, an imprint of Gale, and it's part of the Gale Virtual Reference Library, which seems legit. The book lists their sources at the end of each company's summary and they get good book reviews in peer-reviewed journals (I assume the book reviews aren't peer reviewed, but I do think that goes to its credibility). Not sure how much this means, but my employer (a university) has it available online. It looks good to me, but I wanted outside input, because there's a bit of a *very polite* disagreement about the weight it's given at the DriveTime article, partially stemming from the fact that the citation was originally attributing the content to Funding Universe. I realized today that they had published verbatim the essay from the International Directory of Company Histories, which does seem like a solid source to me.
CP at DriveTime (a DriveTime employee who is using the talkpage and refraining from editing the article himself) questioned the amount of weight given to certain sections of its history under the company's former name Ugly Duckling that were originally sourced to Funding Universe (now changed to the International Directory). Vchimpanzee had been trying to find all of the sources from "Funding Universe's" reference list to replace the citations to Funding Universe, but I'm hoping that's not necessary now that we know the original source (assuming people here agree it's RS). It's mainly only sections of DriveTime's pre-internet history that are sourced to the book, not the entire article or anything. My inclination is that it's reasonable to trust that the International Directory of Company Histories gave appropriate weight to the different aspects of the company's long history. Thoughts? PermStrump (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
That's the correct citation. People who can't access it can see the content on Funding Universe to get a sense of the tone. PermStrump (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed this website www.citypopulation.de being used in multiple articles as a source. However, this seems to be maintained by a single person and as such should be a self-published source. Is this considered a reliable source and should this continue to be used? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
People familiar with what counts as self-published and what self-published sources can and can't be used for may want to give an opinion at Talk:Tim Hunt#Is that Medium article reliable?
There are several issues raised including:
Yaris678 ( talk) 21:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Philippines#Ethnic groups (section) uses a reference to futurescopes.com, that is a dating site with lists of other dating sites, content that may be accurate but is not a vetted source, and the contribution is from an anonymous editor. I question the site as a reliable source on any article but it seems a "good article" would demand much better. Otr500 ( talk) 01:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 200 | ← | Archive 204 | Archive 205 | Archive 206 | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | → | Archive 210 |
I added “Medical doctors in Brazil, India, Portugal, Singapore and Germany have written about using past life stories to help in resolving emotional issues and medical conditions” The book quoted (Dr Peter Mack, isbn = 878 0 9567887 8 8 Inner Healing Journey: A Medical Perspective 2014) is edited by a medical doctor and contains chapters written by other medical doctors. It is not claiming past life stories resolve a specific condition but they give their personal experiences and views of using it and the healing that resulted. The objection is that "WP:MEDRS applies to this update because its an article about a subject people will have an interest in". My point is WP:MEDRS does not apply because no medical information on resolving any medical condition is given.
A sentence was removed “The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships” this is part of the rambling from an internet site from a critic with no evidence to support it. I added “The technique is included in a textbook (U. James, isbn = 978 1 910272 45 9, Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention, Radcliffe Publishing, 2015, Ch 21} for 10 UK medical schools and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”. The author of the book is professor Ursula James of Robert Gordon University. She is one of the leaders in her field and the text book used as a reference book widely. It is mandatory reading for medical doctors on the MSC course. It has chapters written by psychologists and therapists and chapter devoted to past life regression and its use. It is a secondary source book about past life regression. see http://www.amazon.com/Clinical-Hypnosis-Textbook-Practical-Intervention-ebook/dp/B013K8JP8Q/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1454379922&sr=1-1&keywords=ursula+james+hypnosis
This request is to overturn the deletion by KateWishing (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson ( talk • contribs)
Thanks for all your views so perhaps this can be used “Medical doctors in Brazil, India, Portugal, Singapore and Germany have written about their personal views of using past life regression to help in resolving emotional issues and medical conditions” and "The technique is in a chapter in a textbook used in at least one medical school in the UK and for medical doctors doing a MSc in Clinical hypnosis at the Robert Gordon University”— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson ( talk • contribs)
I wonder what it is about the subject of Past Life Regression that causes new information on the subject to be dismissed so easily? A simple google search on the author of the Clinical Hypnosis book “Professor Ursula James at Robert Gordon University in Aberdeen” would have found on the university website http://www.rgu.ac.uk/news/clinical-hypnosis-introduced-to-support-students/
'Clinical Hypnosis is an exciting area of medical practice and we are delighted Professor James has joined our team. We look forward to working with her to develop new courses for the university as well as innovative ways of alleviating stress and improving student performance. Professor James currently heads a team which teaches clinical hypnosis at 11 medical schools in the UK including Oxford and Cambridge. As well as authoring a number of books including The Clinical Hypnosis Textbook'
Her book has been written specifically for training medical doctors in hypnotherapy at university and I would have thought this counted as a suitable reference book to quote from. Also considering the previous quote that it replaced which had been used for a few years was “The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships” and was from an internet site called the Skeptic Dictionary and was part of a critics rambling with no evidence to support it.
Turning to the other book used as a reference “Inner Healing Journey: A Medical Perspective.” Its got 11 patient case studies by 6 medical doctors( two are psychiatrists) of how they have found past life regression assisted in healing when the traditional medical approach was unhelp. An internet search on the author of the book “Dr Peter Mack, singapore” would have found that he is a practicing general surgeon trained in regression therapy which uses past life regression and he explains how it works in great detail in his books and website see http://www.petermack.sg/articles With a little more diligence and internet searches they would have found the book was sponsored by “Society for Medical Advance and Research with Regression Therapy” which has 11 medical doctors from around the world and two psychologists all who have been trained in using past life regression. see http://www.smar-rt.com/members.htm They may done more searches and found a link to the EARTh Association of Regression Therapy http://www.earth-association.org/recognized-training-programs-recognized-trainers/ and found it creates a worldwide standard and has recognised 11 schools programs and has over 200 members from around the world.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy Tomlinson ( talk • contribs)
So is all this “psudo science” or something that needs to be taken seriously and included to a balanced views in the article on Past Life Regression. As I have a vested interest its best I withdraw but ask for an editor to pick it up and update the article. While the books mentioned and Dr Peter Mack’s website may be a useful starting point I’m willing to help if asked. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 11:10, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
This is a book of fiction that she wrote and as the universities she teaches in are not interested in her personal activities why should Wikipedia. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 17:56, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The following article was written by Mário Simões, Professor of Psychiatry and of Consciousness Sciences, Faculty of Medicine of Lisbon, Portugal. He is the Director of the Post-Graduation Course in Clinical and Experimental Hypnosis and of the Laboratory for Mind-Matter Interaction with Therapeutic Intention. The article was published in a peer reviewed ‘The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies’
‘Being symbolic in nature, imagination permits representations of things that do not exist or which are approximations of reality. It is a capacity that allows elaboration of concepts or precognitions which would be impossible to realize in any other way. The idea of exploring reincarnation is close to the concept that a patient must re-experience the primeval drama to exhaust the emotions from it. It does not matter if the experiences are true or not, what is important is an event is experienced in a personized way.’
Simoes, M. Altered States of Consciousness and Psychotherapy, The International Journal of Transpersonal Studies, 2002, v 21 p150 [2]
So now can we start to have a balanced article on Past Life Regression. If not perhaps a controversial subject like this is to much for Wikipedia and it may be best for the whole article to be removed. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 12:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
A balanced view means talking peer reviewed secondary source information that have different views. So we already have a psychologist called Luis Cordón in his published book on psychology saying past life regression may cause delusions. Now we have Professor Ursula James in her book with a chapter saying that past life regression technique is helpful in healing. We also now have Mário Simões, Professor of Psychiatry and of Consciousness Sciences saying in a peer reviewed article that it does not matter if past lives are real or not because they clear emotions in a personal way.
The Skeptics Dictionary is not peer reviewed and was written by Robert Todd who is qualified in philosophy. This is a totally different subject from psychology or psychiatry which Luis Cordon, Ulusa James and Mário Simões are all experts in. As this part of the article is about the use of the techniques of past life regression the views of Robert Todd are simply not relevant.
We also have it stated on the University of Aberdeen website that Professor Ursula James will be using her book in several universities to teach medical doctors including Oxford and Cambridge. So I think it is safe to remove a skeptics personal comment ‘The technique is not taught as part of any medical internships.’
Guy - if you looked at the index of the Clinical Hypnosis Textbook version 3 (the lastest one) past life regression has a whole chapter (ch 21 pages 283 to 294). About your comment ‘some wacky folks who believe in it’. Did you know the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life 2009 survey [3], found 51% of the world believe in reincarnation as do 25% of American Christians.
As I said before lets get this article balanced with peer reviewed secondary courses by experts in their field. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 20:26, 9 March 2016 (UTC)
The therapeutic perspective as explained by professor Marion Simone is that it does not matter if past life stories are real or not, it’s the power the stories to assist in healing that is important.
On the question of proof that reincarnation is real you can start with looking at consciousness surviving physical death. Research by Dr Pim van Lommel and his colleagues from Rijnstate Hospital in Arnhem, Holland, over 13 years investigated the experiences of 344 heart patients resuscitated after cardiac arrest. All had been clinically dead at some point during their treatment. Of these 62 patients reported a near-death experience. During this period many had no electrical activity of the brain. This meant that their memory recall of the experience could not be explained by traditional scientific explanations. This was published in the peer medical journal Lancet. (Van Lommel et al, Near-death Experience in Survivors of Cardiac Arrest; a prospective study in the Netherlands, The Lancet, 15 Dec 2001.) Another area supporting consciousness surviving death and reincarnating is the work of Dr Ian Stevenson, the former head of the department of parapsychology at the University of Virginia. He has specialized in collecting the past life stories from young children around the world by interviewing them and all the witnesses to their experience. This includes looking for inconsistency or fraud by doing follow-up visits later to check for signs of any personal gains that could account for deception. In all, Ian Stevenson and his colleagues have painstakingly collected over 2,000 cases from a wide range of cultures and religions around the world.
Whilst this may suggest reincarnation may be possible, the other side of the coin is what evidence is there that reincarnation does not exist? A Wikipedia balanced view surely should be neutral and present evidence for and against. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 21:41, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
Whilst this may suggest reincarnation may be possible, the other side of the coin is what evidence is there that reincarnation does not exist?I have it in my files. I will upload it to wikipedia 24 hours after you provide proof that I am not God. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 22:11, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
MjolnirPants you may be God or you may not, all I'm asking is that if you have peer reviewed secondary source evidence and not an individual's view that reincarnation does not exists share it, because it may need to go into the article too. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 13:59, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is surely about presenting information in a balanced way, and with controversial topics like this definitely not with a cultural bias as GrammarsLittleHelper points out. So in the examples above I've shown there is some scientifically gathered evidence suggesting that reincarnation may exist. But so far no one has resented any evidence that reincarnation does not exists. Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 18:13, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
Clinical Hypnosis Textbook: A Guide for Practical Intervention is WP:SPS and therefore not reliable. Also of note, psychology is a branch of medicine, and any claim that past life regression "helps some people" is inherently a medical claim, subject to the usual standards. It would be no different from saying that "eating prunes cured some patients of cancer" and MEDRS applies. Geogene ( talk) 21:04, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
It seems to me that the process of writing balanced articles on a controversial subject like this in Wikipedia are just not working. Evidence from experts in their field is dismissed yet information from a skeptic dictionary by a non expert included. Does anyone know how issues like this can get flagged up to those in charge of Wikipedia, or even the creator of Wikipedia? Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 15:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
MjolnirPants I agree the use of past life regression as a therapy needs to be separated from the question of ‘is reincarnation real’. If you read the WP article on ‘past life regression’ you will find a chapter on therapy called 'techniques' and on reincarnation called 'source of the memories'. So both areas need addressing. About therapy – it was explained above that a therapy does not need to be from “medically reliable sources” because most medical professionals have not been trained in past life regression or had there own personal experience. Just sharing their personal views is not good enough. So we also need to also turn to psychologists and psychotherapists and with quotes from reliable sources. Above I mentioned two professors who are leaders in there field and 6 medical doctors trained in past life regression that take the view that past life regression is helpful whether past lives and real or not. About past lives being real – currently we have the personal views of skeptics that they are cryptomnesia etc. OK we can leave this in because that’s one side although some of the refereces are out of print and not verifiable. But we need to include evidence of a professor from a US university who studied over 2000 children’s spontaneous past lives, many just stating to talk, that cannot be explained away with cryptomnesia. Also the work with near death experience research published in the medical journal Lancet. This is what I call balanced, leaving out one side or the other is unbalanced or subjecting the article to the personal views of the editors. If we cannot all agree with this then it needs escalating to those that manage Wikipedia Andy Tomlinson ( talk) 12:50, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
About therapy – it was explained above that a therapy does not need to be from “medically reliable sources” because most medical professionals have not been trained in past life regression or had there own personal experience.
Above I mentioned two professors who are leaders in there field and 6 medical doctors trained in past life regression that take the view that past life regression is helpful whether past lives and real or not.MEDRS requires published reviews (of clinical trials, case studies and primary studies), and prefers it when said review is both the newest such review, and several years old, as this means the results are as iron-clad as possible. Medical claims require much better sourcing than any other subject on this site (with biographical claims being the second) because people will cite and refer to Wikipedia when making medical decisions. We cannot do anything to lead them astray. So find a 5 year old review of a large number of studies and trials of PLRT which has passed peer review and been published in a reputable medical journal, and where there are no more recent reviews contradicting it, and cite that. If you can't find it, then you can't make the claim here. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:12, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
http://powerbase.info/index.php/Mark_Kennedy:_A_chronology_of_his_activities [4] appears to be a Wiki - used for:
As well as a number of other Wikipedia articles.
Is it a reliable source for the claims attributed to it and to claims made about it on http://spannerfilms.net/undercovers (which does not appear, on its face, to meet WP:RS either)
I fear I mistrust Wikis - especially ones which do not use "reliable sources" for claims, but rely on facts provided by involved persons (?). Note the subject appears to be a living person. Collect ( talk) 19:30, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
To use it we'd need so much caution it might not be worthit. People should know a source on Wikipedia is good, or at least one they can't have been faulted for trusting. If this source turns out to be wrong about something, we'd be the sheep for trusting it, it seems. 172.58.224.235 ( talk) 06:18, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find a previous discussion on this site [5]. Specifically, it's being used to source a year of birth and birthplace for the BLP of Frank Dux, a controversial figure with a history of fabrication. Most things about him are self-published. This site is third party, but I question the reliability of it. Opinions? Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Any issues with using an interview that was on the Perfect Sound Forever website, furious.com, as an external link in a music article? 63.143.230.53 ( talk) 00:00, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Our article states: "Dalessandro's Steaks & Hoagies is a cheesesteak eatery that was founded in 1960 on Wendover St in Roxborough." For reasons that I can only ascribe to WP:BOMBARDMENT, this NYT article, the local CBS affiliate and this from The Daily Meal are cited.
This is the lede sentence in the article. (Yes, I know the MOS says we generally do not cite sources in the lede.)
The NYT article tells a brief story about the author eating there with his father. The only real "claim" in the sentence is that it was founded in 1960, which is stated further on in the article, without a source. The closest the NYT source gets is that the author's dad ate there "in the early '60s". CBS says this it's been there for "a very long time". "The Daily Meal" has nothing to say about the date.
Two questions: 1) Are any of these sources reliable for the claim that it was founded in 1960? 2) Is there any reason to cite these sources in the lede? - SummerPhD v2.0 02:48, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
I've added the official site as a source for the date, in the body of the article. Any reason to keep these three non-source sources in the lede sentence? - SummerPhD v2.0 15:03, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Note: There are a number of independent sources that confirm the founding date of 1960:
I would like an advisory opinion on whether it is ok to use the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights in the lede of a high visibility article, as is done here [7]. Thanks, Athenean ( talk) 01:43, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
The book Blown for Good is self-published by "Blown for Good, Inc." See the publication page. As such, it is a self-published book. How much credibility should Wikipedia grant it? Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 23:29, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
References
I noticed this website being used as a source; more specifically, a blogger with a handle being used as a source for a quote. I am not sure how we land on the topic of how reliable the reviews and statements of anonymous contributors. I've searched through the RSN archives, and it doesn't appear that this has been discussed before. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 22:46, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
While reviewing the article for GA, I informed the nominator that this source, this one, and this one used to verifiy a court battle, new label change, and an annual songwriting compeition held in her country, looked like a Romanian version of TMZ and subsequenly asked him what made them reliable, for which the nominator proceceed by informing me that "the newspaper also concepted a television show which is very popular in Romania".
For this source, I didn't know anything about the website or author so I decided to further investigate the author and found that his his 'about me' page stated that he has a BA in an unknown field of study and his Twitter account says that he is a freelancer with no credibility to his name anywhere. The nominator used the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS line on me and also told me that the two reviewers who reviewed his past GA articles with the same source said nothing about it.
For this and this source I couldn't find anything on the website that gave me any reassurance that it was a reliable source so I researched the author and found a blog he uses for people to ask him questions on various topics and found nothing else on his qualifications.
And finally this source I too couldn't find anything on and when I researched the author I came across his personal website where he likes to write about the "private lives of celebrities" and gives no creditablilty as to where he gets his information from. Best, – jona ✉ 13:04, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
I'd encourage RSN regulars to take a look at Talk:Laura_Branigan#Consensus_discussion and give their views on the use of sources re this person's birth year. Many thanks. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 07:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Please remove the Han Chinese married to Hmong women. This section has no credible support. I kindly as you to remove it.
Thanks, — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.250.140.90 ( talk • contribs)
Leith Abou Fadel and his blog Al-Masdar News ( link, link) have frequently been used as a source for battles and victories in the Syrian Civil War, most notably the map at Cities and towns during the Syrian Civil War. However, on forums discussing the war, Fadel and Al-Masdar have a reputation for highly biased coverage and very poor reliability. For example:
"Also known as the chief (and one of the only) editor at Almasdarnews, a platform banned from this subreddit, Leith has been famous for making outrageous claims that are rarely backed up and posted on his blog, Almasdarnews. The issue is that he is often viewed as a good source by people who are not familiar with this conflict as he poses his platform (Almasdar) as authoritative and as a press outlet, whereas it is just similar to a blog. Leith does however have some contacts within the Syrian government but never quotes them or posts proof of their messages and communications. He has been very infamous for making clickbait titles in order to get more traffic to his blog, often making very extreme announcements such as the call of the start of the offensive for Palmyra 7 times or the splitting of Ghouta a similar amount of times. He is very pro-regime and will not shy away from posting outright false information about the Coalition forces, Turkey or Saudi Arabia.
Overall you only want to follow Leith if you want breaking news all day long with smileyfaces and wishful thinking about government achievements.
Accuracy: Very poor
Supports: Government" ( link)
His reporting's accuracy has also been questioned by the New York Times ( link).
Could we get a reliable source check for this? Thanks. NeatGrey ( talk) 00:13, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Open University Press's website says, "McGraw-Hill Create™ allows you to create customized eBooks and print books to support your teaching. Create the ultimate book for your course by selecting chapters from different OpenUP books and adding your own notes to create a book that fits perfectly to your module outline." If you follow the link that says, What is McGraw-Hill create?, it says, "You can even select third-party content like readings, articles, cases, videos, and more... Combine content from multiple sources access multiple disciplines and even integrate your own content such as a syllabus, class notes, or exercises... Include readings, cases, or assignments to use in conjunction with textbook chapters... Add your syllabus or lecture notes to the textbook... Join the text and the student study guide together in one text."
A couple of books cited on Body psychotherapy were published through Open University Press. Several of the other sources, such as Röhricht, cite the books published via Open UP. I'm pretty sure the original source is WP:SELFPUB but I couldn't find previous discussions about it on wikipedia or really anywhere else before. Thanks, PermStrump (talk) 00:12, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
That whole section is sourced to "The Stewarts of Blackhall and Ardgowan," J.L. Olar BA, Journal of Ancient and Medieval Studies: The Octavian Society, 1997–2000. You can see the back issue indexed here; housed by this group that describes itself as "amateur and professional scholars who focus in the fields of chivalry, genealogy, heraldry, history before 1700, and royalty & nobility"
Thoughts on whether or not, this is a reliable source for Barony_of_Blackhall#Barons_of_Blackhall_since_1395? -- Jytdog ( talk) 06:22, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
This source [9], is currently being used on the political status for the 2016 United States Election. A number of editors though have questioned how reliable it is Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Delegate count as the delegate count differs from major sources like NYT/CNN/AP. So my question is should this source even be used? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:37, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Would the French film website 'psychovision.net' [10] be considered a reliable review source (for a related movie article reference)? Thank you for your thoughts. Carnymike ( talk) 08:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
This source is a copyright violation scan of US Airways magazine. It says, about getting the "real" cheesesteak experience, "You must wait in a long line, along walls tiled with autographed headshots of celebrities, and have a surly staff serve you." It then mentions Jim's Steaks. Is this a reliable source for saying specifically about Jim's, "Jim's has been frequented by celebrities. Headshots, photos, and autographs of celebrities that have dined at the restaurant can be seen on the wall."
1) Is US Airways magazine a reliable source?
2) Should we link to the scan?
3) Does the source support the material? - SummerPhD v2.0 04:32, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I also posted about this here, but I might get more traction here. See Xiaopin (literary genre)#References for an example of my problem. This could get kind of icky if I (and other users!) keep doing it without some discussion, consensus and standardized guidelines. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 08:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
It's hit or miss. Generally, if it is a physically published book by any medium-to-large size publisher, there will be page numbers because the electronic copy which is used to make the print book will also be used to make the ebook, and it will retain the page breaks. For self-published ebook authors, it all depends on what software they write in (there are templates, for example, for Microsoft Word that will place page breaks at appropriate locations for hardcover or paperback books) and what formatting options they use. The only 'default' option is the loc and chapters. You can check any book by doing a search for a common word like "the". If the results give you location and page number, it (obviously) has page numbers. If you can't access the page number any other way, just do a search for the passage you're citing and get it that way. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 04:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
Key issue here is document uploaded to ScribD. Secondary issue is a second insufficiently cited ref, used inappropriately.
As an occupational lung disease, it is most classically associated with aerospace manufacturing, beryllium mining or manufacturing of fluorescent light bulbs (which once contained beryllium compounds in their internal phosphor coating). [1] [2]
References
{{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
-- Jytdog ( talk) 18:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Anyway, please do comment on the reliability of documents uploaded to ScribD, and what the heck should be done with the 2nd source. Thanks. Jytdog ( talk) 18:34, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Can we simply use a different source? Say this book by the National Research Council? Gamaliel ( talk) 20:15, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
Berylliosis is an occupational disease. [1] Relevant occupations are those where beryllium is mined, processed or converted into metal alloys, or where machining of metals containing beryllium and recycling of scrap alloys occurs. [2]
References
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.
Currently, there is disagreement on the argument from authority page over whether Carl Sagan's book can be cited. The page quotes his book The Demon-Haunted World saying "One of the great commandments of science is, 'Mistrust arguments from authority.'...Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else". It also cites a biology education journal that discusses an example of an appeal to authority that lead the scientific community into error, and concludes "we did not follow the scientific paradigm when we put our trust in an authority". However these were removed and disputed by an editor because the "Cited sources are not logicians, thus not reliable sources on the subject of this article". I contend that since these are sources that're about the method of science that address arguments from authority, they are reliable sources for how much weight these sorts of argument carry in science specifically.
So, are these reliable sources for the article? FL or Atlanta ( talk) 15:00, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
lol it looks like the philosophy majors are out in force today. On science we trust scientists. They're natural philosophers. If a philosopher - who's work can't be put to the test and which gets thrown into a journal to be forgotten and never actially does anything - disagrees with a scientist, who's work we can actually test and which makes predictions, we should go with the scientist every time. Include both but the scientists take precendece for the article. 172.58.224.134 ( talk) 20:28, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
Do we have reason to believe that Michelle Goldberg is an expert on anti-semitism, anti-semitic tropes, the Zeitgeist Movement, the Zeitgeist film series, or the movie producer Peter Joseph? Some editors here insist that her comments on the Zeitgeist film are factual and must be in the article. I am concerned that her remarks are non-factual (pure opinion) and border-line libelous about a living person, and we should not be repeating them in WP. The remarks are particularly obtuse because the films do not mention Jewish people or Israel, and the real experts on antisemitism (the ADL) make no similar pronouncement. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 06:48, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
Addendum: The purpose of the RSN is to establish whether a particular source is reliable for a particular claim. Since the claim is Ms G's opinion of the 'movement' and film, the answer must be yes, she is RS. We cannot answer general questions about the merits or judiciousness of her judgements, which is what the phrasing of this RSN asks us to do. Pincrete ( talk) 01:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes, of course, if Zeitgeist were in any way antisemitic, every RS mentioning Zeitgeist would mention its antisemitic overtones.That is one of the most ludicrous statements I've ever seen here. Not only is it OR, it's a straight up informal fallacy. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 17:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
As ever, this is opinion which must be cited and ascribed as such. I note that the "anti-Semitism" bit seems to be in reaction to her position that the movement appears to be one predicting "communism" which is likely thus related to her opinions here. Collect ( talk) 11:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
Resolution: Goldberg's statement applies to the first movie, not the Zeitgeist Movement. Previous editors tried to tie that remark to the movement by the WP:OR and WP:SYNTH, inserting the language that the first movie "inspired" the movement. But that is contradicted by the Orlando Sentinel source. [15] The Movement was inspired by Jacque Fresco, not Joseph's first movie. I have therefore removed the statement. Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 19:36, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/11139#.VwO64I-cHxM is used as a source for the following claim about Luke Harding:
As near as I can tell, this is, at best, editorial commentary by Richard de Lacy on what appears to be a red-top "news site" which includes vast amounts about sex and "adult entertainment" and the like, and interesting views on paedophilia etc. Is this a valid fact source for the claims made? Collect ( talk) 13:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that this link https://business.highbeam.com/411456/article-1G1-208423917/key-releases-260909 is being used as a source on Wikipedia articles. It claims to be an archived copy of a page from Music Week magazine to substantiate album sales claims, but I find it hard to believe it is. It isn't even a reproduction of a page, simply a lot of text claiming to be so. It could have been written by anyone and I think is impossible to verify it. Should we be allowing this as a source? 90.205.153.185 ( talk) 23:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
In many physical albums there are text that describes who did what on the album (who wrote the lyrics, describes performers, who mastered it et.c.) are those considered reliable sources or not? An editor claims that if a release is on Discogs then the liner notes are not reliable as Discogs is considered to not be reliable. // Liftarn ( talk) 09:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Normally I wouldn't have touched this website, since as a WP:SPS I would not immediately assume it was reliable. However, it appears to be generally accepted as reliable on wikipedia for information on the Catholic Church. I now have to ask for opinions on whether we stop using it as a reliable source on wikipedia.
Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands has been on my watchlist for a while, this is a parish covering British Overseas Territories in the South Atlantic. On April 2, an Argentine editor began editing the article to remove any reference to South Georgia and other BOT, claiming these are under the diocese of the Bishop of Rio Gallegos. There is a long discussion on what was essentially one editors WP:OR trying to dispute what the website said.
Having failed to remove the content, he has now badgered the website owner to change the entry to say what he wanted. If a website can change information due to lobbying like this to influence content on wikipedia, I have to ask how we can ever consider it reliable as a source? Please note in Talk:Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands the editor concerned openly admits to contacting the website owner to change the content to what he wanted. W C M email 07:00, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
First of all, please forgive me my typing errors because English is not my native language. I need to clarify the tendentious comments WCM, he not telling the truth in saying that I claim that Georgias and South Sandwich Islands are under the diocese of Rio Gallegos. I make clear that I am strictly neutral when edit in Wikipedia. They can see that I have almost 89,000 editions in several projects of the encyclopedia. WCM also not telling the truth when he said that I pressed the webmaster of GCatholic for him to change the content of what I wanted. At the beginning of the discussion with WCM I told him I would contact GC requesting information, also I did it with the website of the Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands. The second still did not answer the first answered me and changed the content of your website freely without me suggest what to put on, just gave the same information I put in the discussion of the article. WCM bases its entire opinion that the Falkland Islands Dependencies did not exist in 1952, however it is easily verifiable that is not right and I showed it effortlessly. WCM rejects my speech because of my nationality.
The encyclopedic article Apostolic Prefecture of the Falkland Islands said that these islands belonged to the apostolic prefecture. I wanted to check and found that the source was GCatholic. This web site does not mention where the data obtained. I also checked that can not be found on other Internet websites say the same. I verified that the papal bulls do not mention these islands. The other source is used in Wikipedia Catholic Hierarchy. This website does not mention to these islands and bases its information on the Annuario Pontificio. I also verified that the diocese of Rio Gallegos claims jurisdiction over those islands. In view of that, the information can not be maintained while certainly not clarify the matter.
As for the reliability of the source, as I said there are two websites that are updated daily with respect to changes in the Catholic hierarchy: Catholic Hierarchy and GCatholic. Both are widely used in the various Wikipedia projects. Obviously no one is infallible and they make mistakes, as do all websites. In both cases I have mentioned them and they have responded mistakes and sometimes I changed the information. When both websites differ it is necessary to verify the information from other sources. In general the information provided verifiable, but in some cases it is not, for example when it comes to these islands, and others like Bouvet Island.-- Nerêo ( talk) 14:47, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Source:
Context:
Question:
Thank you for your comments. Borsoka ( talk) 02:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Wiki-psyc reshaped personal boundaries last year (including renaming it as setting boundaries). The changes were heavily underpinned by a cite to a single webpage - http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries.
The http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries webpage does not have any cites. It is also more of an annex to the main subject of the website - borderline personality disorder. Setting boundaries currently gives huge weight and credibility to this single reference - it underpins the current name of this article, the first three sentences in the lead and much of Setting boundaries#Process.
I can find nothing relevant to the author of that web page, "R. Skip Johnson", in Google Books or Scholar.
R. Skip Johnson is simply listed here but without any named position for http://bpdfamily.com. It does not say that he has any relevant academic or clinical expertise.
I believe http://bpdfamily.com/content/setting-boundaries does not pass WP:RS especially as so much weight is given to it. There are 38 other different cites given in setting boundaries, many from contributors with relevant academic and clinical knowledge eg John Townsend (author), Charles Whitfield, Robin Skynner and Henry Cloud. -- Penbat ( talk) 14:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Article: BLP William Lane Craig. Content: "William Lane Craig is a philosopher..."
One user disputes that these sources calling him a philosopher are truly independent. Allegedly, the sources calling him a professor of philosophy are not to be trusted as independent because the individual himself might have written them. No evidence for the charge has been provided, and yet they remain resolutely skeptical.
Sources: University websites listing him as a professor of philosophy, and/or in the philosophy department:
Additional sources from HighBeam Research-- Isaidnoway (talk) 23:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC) [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16]
References
He received a doctorate in philosophy from the University of Birmingham and a doctorate in theology from the University of Munich.
William Lane Craig, research professor of philosophy at Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada, Calif.
AMONG THE BRIGHTEST LIGHTS ON THE GOD-DEBATE circuit shines the Christian philosopher and apologist, Dr. William Lane Craig.
Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has slammed Armstrong's ideas about God's nature.
Christian apologist and Emory University professor William Lane Craig.
Philosopher William Lane Craig of the Talbot School of Theology
D'Souza has been joined by Christian apologists Lee Strobel, William Lane Craig
prominent design-theorists such as...William Lane Craig
Scheduled speakers included...philosopher William Lane Craig
Evangelical philosopher and Discovery Institute fellow William Lane Craig
Craig is distinguished philosopher known professionally for his work in philosophy of time and philosophy of religion...a reputation as one of the world's foremost Christian apologists.
The tensed theory, which has many versions, is advocated by such philosophers as William Lane Craig
Philosopher William Lane Craig's chapter, "Naturalism and Intelligent Design," asks:
Take the Kalam cosmological argument - first outlined by the medieval Muslim theologian al-Ghazali, and nowadays formulated by the Christian philosopher William Lane Craig
William Lane Craig, perhaps the best-known Christian apologist in the country
Christian apologists like William Lane Craig
" Team" is a new single released by Iggy Azalea. According to the writing credits on Tidal where the single was released: 12 writers wrote the song ( See here for a third-party source). However, Azalea herself has said on Twitter that this is not accurate, specifically referring to the Wikipedia article of the song ( See her tweet here). According to her, only 7 writers were involved.
It is likely that the 5 people she claims did not write the song, did not write the song's lyrics. But they have been credited as writers for other reasons which Azalea has most likely overlooked; 3 of them are credited for the sample of " Back that Azz Up" the song uses, while the other two are producers most likely credited for composing a melody (this is common practice in pop music). My view is that that I highly doubt her record label would release the single accompanied by incorrect writing credits. She has most likely overlooked that the writers of "Back that Azz Up" are credited because "Team" samples the song, and the other two producers most likely credited as composers of a melody not a lyric.
In such a situation which is the best source to use?
I can see this potentially causing an edit war at the article page especially with Azalea's tweet referring to it. Instagram Camera ( talk)
Is it a reliable source for musical commentary?-- MaranoFan ( talk) 12:56, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Provided as always that opinions must be cited and ascribed as opinions, of course. "Commentary" is the key word here. Collect ( talk) 15:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
LifeZette seems to have an editorial board (including Editor-in-Chief Laura Ingraham). It is currently cited as a source for one of (perennial US Presidential candidate) Rick Santorum's favorite songs.
I am not seeing much non-promotional mention of LifeZette online beyond the interest in Laura Ingraham building her brand. I'm also wondering if Ingraham Media might actually be less a news/opinion source than the front end of some publicity operation, in which case should it be used as a source for data even as fluffy as this. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:04, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
I acknowledge the content of this edit is super-trivial, but I am concerned that low-reliability sources like this one are used to inject PR into Wikipedia. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
All that was said and concluded about Scribd (above) could be said and concluded about Wikileaks. If there is any editorial oversight on the content on Wikileaks, it is not in evidence and cannot be examined or verified. Does Wikipedia put any credibility in the documents on Wikileaks? Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 07:27, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
https://books.google.it/books?id=jG9cAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA305&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false
The source is not accepted because ostensibly the date of the first mention of the Ducagini de Arbania (late VIIth century) seems to be too removed back in time (I would add "according to whom?"), ignoring the fact that the chronicle is perfectly coherent as a historical account both in space and time in all its details, reason for wich Makushev, Gegaj and N.G.L Hammond all accept the source as valid.
I would like to add that inbetween the date of the source and the mention of Albanians at the beginning of XIth century, there is another source just recently discovered wrote by the historical ecclesiast and priest Daniele Farlati that specifically mention Albanians as inhabitants of Epirus Nova in the IXth century:( http://i68.tinypic.com/34674ae.png)
"Leo Sapiens, qui sæculo nono rerum in oriente potiebatur, in sua expositione de nominibus urbium & locorum &c. incolas Epiri novæ appellari ait Albanitas.". Herakliu ( talk) 09:39, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous. Legends and pseudohistory, get it? Herakliu has the wrong answers to everything, "you lie", "it is a typo", etc. I've asked him countless times to be constructive, but all he does is to refuse the facts and insult. The stories are partially based on the Chronicle of the Priest of Duklja (mentioning Radoslav Belo, etc), a source that is NOT used in scholarship for early medieval history. King Radoslav (of the Kingdom of Bosnia) rules Bosnia, Albania, Dalmatia and Croatia since 528? Since neither of you are familiar with early medieval Balkans, I'd like to ask another user what he thinks. @ Cplakidas: Is Vikentije Makushev's manuscript reliable? It says, among other outrageous events, that the Dukagjini of Arbania attacked the Kingdom of Bosnia in the 7th century. — this, Herakliu wants to use in Origin of the Albanians and Dukagjini family, and then, I assume, in all other Albanian-history-related articles. -- Zoupan 13:19, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The automated retroactive blacklisting of "archive.is" links has become an automated work generator for humans. Cyberbot II is flagging many articles for human attention. See, for example, [19]. Here, it's blacklisting the link even though it's just an "archiveurl" field and the main URL (to a CNN new story) is still good. I can see blacklisting "archive.is", because it's abusable, but doing so blindly and retroactively and expecting humans to fix the problems is a good way to lose editors. If this task is to be automated, it needs to be automated better. John Nagle ( talk) 19:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
I recently came across some edits by Karmaclub, who appears to be an employee or paid editor for the lyrics website Genius per edits like this one.
The problem here is that anyone can annotate Genius, so I'm really concerned about it being used to back up claims like this one, where it's used to back up claims that Lennon was inspired by Lewis Carroll. Obviously he was, but I don't think that a wiki-style annotation website would be the best place for this. I ended up replacing it with a Rolling Stones article that makes the same claim. There are also some slightly questionable links like this one where it's used to back up producer credits for an album.
My question is basically this: because anyone can annotate Genius, can it be used as a source for anything? Could it even be used as a source for even the most basic of claims such as producer or lyrics mentions? If the answer to either is no, would it be a valid external link?
I'm just concerned about this. Even if there is some sort of oversight, I don't think that it'd be nearly strict enough to be really considered a reliable source on Wikipedia. Also, if we're going to be using it to back up very basic claims then my thought is that there has to be some sort of better source for this, like Allmusic (for basic credits), articles from places already deemed RS, and so on. I've asked Karmaclub to not add more links to Wikipedia until that point. In all fairness they're correcting links rather than inserting them as far as I can see, but there's still the problem that they're making a ton of edits surrounding Genius, to the point where I initially mistook it for spam. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:30, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
I am not posting any new links to Genius.com. I am correcting bad links to outdated URL's (changing RapGenius.com to Genius.com). That is 100% of the scope of the project. Feel free to QC any of my edits...that's what you will find. Karmaclub ( talk) 14:17, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
BTW, both rapgenius.com (redirecting to rap.genius.com) and genius.com are crowdsourced repositories of lyrics and used in wikipedia as refs to lyrics. Lyrics pages like this one do not have evidence of copyright. As such, they are clearly copyright violations and therefore must be blacklisted. Does anyone know how to do this? Staszek Lem ( talk) 23:29, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
For your reference: Rap Genius Website Agrees to License With Music Publishers Karmaclub ( talk) 19:36, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
Is this reliable? — Calvin999 09:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Hey, is this source reliable enough to be used for establishing the notability of the characters presented there? Is it creditable for selecting the "Best Dressed Iranians"? Please consider that the characters are those of opposing the current Iranian government (they are not selected among all Iranian) and the website has noted to "battles over hejab and the Basij" which shows the level of discrimination. Mhhossein ( talk) 05:55, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
"Fashion articles" are fluff at best, presenting opinions about fashions, and are not a valid source for factual claims of any ilk no matter the publisher. Even The New York Times Fashion section is fluff, ask any editor there <g>. Collect ( talk) 15:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Are audited financials considered primary or secondary sources when they are being used as a cite to budget spending by a movie or show? The debate stems from the talk page for Avengers Age of Ultron. At issue are the audited financial statements of the production company set up to produce a certain film. The audited financials in question were also reported in a Forbes Contributor article (held to be reliable based on the credentials of the writer) and Politico.
But the language on the reliable sources examples page notes: "Accounts and Notes to the Accounts in an annual report, which have been independently audited, can be considered secondary sources about the organization, and have some level of reliability. The process of audit provides a degree of editorial oversight although the statement by the auditors may contain caveats which should be borne in mind when using the material." This begs the question, can we cite the filings as reliable secondary sources? The "Full Accounts" for these productions (in this case Avengers Age of Ultron, production company Assembled Productions II) lists the production spending for various periods of production. For example, the period ending May 15th 2015 shows that Avengers AOU had a cost of sales (the production spend) in the amount of 62.7 million GBP. Can we cite these amounts as coming from a reliable secondary source--i.e. the audited financial accounts hosted on a UK government website? Depauldem ( talk) 22:52, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I have posted a question to the Help desk (under section " Agnes Repplier bibliography"), and it was suggested that I inquire here as well. My question can be read/replied to there. Appreciated, Londonjackbooks ( talk) 00:18, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Caroline Bliss ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Would this be considered a reliable source for information about the personal life of Caroline Bliss. Western Morning News seems reliable enough, but the use of the pen name "This is Devon" by the author makes me wonder if this is a WP:NEWSBLOG or some kind of reader submission. Even if it is a reliable source, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for a BLP. Anyway, the source was added by another editor and I was just trying to clean up the bare url and the related text. If this is considered reliable and not WP:CIRCULAR, then it could possibly be used to cite other information in the article. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 05:18, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
JzG insists on removing [20] the section in the article What the Bleep Do We Know on the individuals who cmt in the movie citing they are not significant to the article. I don't feel I can argue that kind of logic and have removed myself, but also hate to see the article unilaterally stripped of this information./content. Please feel free to look in if interested. ( Littleolive oil ( talk) 13:58, 14 April 2016 (UTC))
This concerns the page R2-45
Tony Ortega used to be the editor of ''Village Voice''. He wrote many articles about the Church of Scientology that were published there and in other papers. Eventually, he was dismissed from the Voice reportedly because he was spending too much time on Scientology articles rather than the work the Voice preferred he do. He now runs a personal web page, tonyortega.org, on which he posts a personal blog about Scientology, called The Underground Bunker. There is no editorial oversight in evidence on that sight -- just Ortega. An audio recording has appeared there that is allegedly part of an L. Ron Hubbard recording. The editors on the R2-45 page want to use that recording to support the claim that Hubbard advocated murder of his enemies and the Church uses threats of murder to intimidate people, and it is based on rather thin evidence. These are criminal accusations that have never been tried in a court of law. The links the editors want to use are this and this. Ortega's text suggests Ortega does little fact checking but merely reports whatever is said to him that confirms his bias. Question: Ortega may be an expert on some aspects of Scientology, but does everything he posts on his web page become true and reliable in the eyes of Wikipedia? (There are also copyright issues in this link, but I am not sure this is the place to bring it up.) Grammar'sLittleHelper ( talk) 06:19, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Involved, but concur with Jzg. Ortega's discussion of Wikileaks tape meets RS, can be summarized with proper attribution. But also concur with Sfarney that it would be extremely inappropriate to state as fact in wiki-voice that 'Hubbard advocated murder of his enemies'. Feoffer ( talk) 01:49, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
Recent events suggest that Ortega is carefully monitoring his presence as a source on Wikipedia, and tailoring his blog to serve that purpose, possibly in coordination with WP editors. Here is the scene:
Wikipedia page
R2-45 contains a link to a
tonyorteg.org blog entry. Until two days ago, that blog page included an embedded 3-minute tape that was purportedly a segment from a copyrighted L.Ron Hubbard lecture that was probably copyrighted, in everyone's opinion. Editors were discussing that copyvio issue above on April 11 -- only two days ago. The snapshot of that page archived on
March 24, 2016 contains the text and other signs of a media inclusion, but the archive does not include the copyrighted recording. I filed a copyvio query on April 12. On April 13, 2016,
Wikipedia_talk:Copyright_problems#R2-45 OTRS answered with the opinion that Wikipedia should not link to that page. Today we find that Ortega has modified his blog entry to suit the requirements of Wikipedia's copyright policy, substituting a fixed image of a Colt 45 pistol in the position where previously the recording was embedded. Note that the page still bears the words, "We have about three minutes of it for you in a recording". The speed of Ortega's response to the OTRS opinion copyright problem query suggests that our own Wikpedia editors are working closely with Ortega to tailor the tonyortega.org blog so that it can serve as a source for Wikipedia. As noted before on this forum, when a source is modifying and tailoring the source literature to suit Wikipedia in cooperation with Wikipedia editors, it is not reliable. I would like to hear the opinion of other editors.
Grammar'sLittleHelper (
talk) 16:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
I believe sources below are sufficient for establishing notability of Draft:Sabrina Ho (何超盈). What are your thoughts?
Source 1
Phoenix News Media Limited article http://ent.ifeng.com/a/20151026/42515641_0.shtml
This source comes from a publicly listed mainstream media company (FENG:US). The entire source provides in depth coverage of Sabrina Ho's work and charities
Source 2
Oriental Daily News article http://orientaldaily.on.cc/cnt/entertainment/20151226/00282_029.html
Oriental Daily News is a mainstream Hong Kong newspaper established in 1969 (see Oriental Daily News). The source covers Sabrina Ho's history and involvement with art, along with her aspirations for her newly formed companies
Source 3
Wenweipo Newspaper http://paper.wenweipo.com/2016/01/08/RW1601080001.htm
Wenweipo is a mainstream Hong Kong newspaper established in 1948 (see Wen Wei Po). The source has in depth coverage of Sabrina Ho's career, education, artistic influences and future aspirations
Source 4
NetEase Beijing http://fashion.163.com/15/1228/15/BBUCA7SM00264MK3.html
NetEase is a publicly listed media company on NASDAQ (NASDAQ:NTES) with over 18 years history (see NetEase). The article has in depth coverage of Sabrina Ho's education, her new art auction company and her contributions to the art community
Thanks! Angrylala ( talk) 03:49, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Hi! I'm currently at an edit-a-thon and one of the attendees had a question that I wanted some more feedback on.
The question deals with the BJS and the survey data they collected. He wanted to know how much of the BJS is usable and in what ways it's usable. I think that any of the data would be usable since they're a fairly authoritative source, both on the results and the methodology they use to collect the data, since they detail their process. I believe that it should be OK depending on how it's phrased - saying stuff like "the BJS found that..." and "the BJS has stated that their process is...", where both would state direct findings via comments and summaries from the sources themselves.
What do you guys think? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 15:53, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
Is http://www.newsweek.com/assange-how-guardian-milked-edward-snowdens-story-323480?rx=us (an opinion column, labeled as such by Newsweek), by Julian Assange a reliable source for the following claims of fact in a BLP:
And is the Private Eye labeling of Harding a claim of fact that he is a plagiarist to be made in Wikipedia's voice? (noting that PE is a satirical magazine). Collect ( talk) 22:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
My view is that neither can support a claim like in the voice of the encyclopedia. I don't think Assange's claims are sufficient for more than saying "Julian Assange accused this guy of plagiarism when he had a bug in his ear about a story of his". It's possible Newsweek doesn't like to get sued for accusing someone of plagiarism, so it's actually true. If that's the case we should be able to find some better sourcing (look into Ames and Levine?) to support it. Assuming he did plagiarize all that and we can find better evidence for it I don't see a problem w/ noting that PE awarded him "plagiarist of the year". Protonk ( talk) 10:34, 15 April 2016 (UTC)
Article says his family has been traced to "American and Irish, French, Scottish, English, Welsh, German and Swiss ancestry that has been traced back 1,400 years by Ancestry.com,". I thought we'd agreed this wasn't a reliable source - and in a BLP? Doug Weller talk 18:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Can anyone tell me if any of these sources are reliable? FN1, FN2, FN3, FN4, FN5, FN6, FN7, and FN8. Thanks, – jona ✉ 14:49, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the book International Directory of Company Histories a reliable source for information on a company's history? The publisher is St. James Press, an imprint of Gale, and it's part of the Gale Virtual Reference Library, which seems legit. The book lists their sources at the end of each company's summary and they get good book reviews in peer-reviewed journals (I assume the book reviews aren't peer reviewed, but I do think that goes to its credibility). Not sure how much this means, but my employer (a university) has it available online. It looks good to me, but I wanted outside input, because there's a bit of a *very polite* disagreement about the weight it's given at the DriveTime article, partially stemming from the fact that the citation was originally attributing the content to Funding Universe. I realized today that they had published verbatim the essay from the International Directory of Company Histories, which does seem like a solid source to me.
CP at DriveTime (a DriveTime employee who is using the talkpage and refraining from editing the article himself) questioned the amount of weight given to certain sections of its history under the company's former name Ugly Duckling that were originally sourced to Funding Universe (now changed to the International Directory). Vchimpanzee had been trying to find all of the sources from "Funding Universe's" reference list to replace the citations to Funding Universe, but I'm hoping that's not necessary now that we know the original source (assuming people here agree it's RS). It's mainly only sections of DriveTime's pre-internet history that are sourced to the book, not the entire article or anything. My inclination is that it's reasonable to trust that the International Directory of Company Histories gave appropriate weight to the different aspects of the company's long history. Thoughts? PermStrump (talk) 22:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
That's the correct citation. People who can't access it can see the content on Funding Universe to get a sense of the tone. PermStrump (talk) 22:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
I have noticed this website www.citypopulation.de being used in multiple articles as a source. However, this seems to be maintained by a single person and as such should be a self-published source. Is this considered a reliable source and should this continue to be used? -- Lemongirl942 ( talk) 03:22, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
People familiar with what counts as self-published and what self-published sources can and can't be used for may want to give an opinion at Talk:Tim Hunt#Is that Medium article reliable?
There are several issues raised including:
Yaris678 ( talk) 21:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
Philippines#Ethnic groups (section) uses a reference to futurescopes.com, that is a dating site with lists of other dating sites, content that may be accurate but is not a vetted source, and the contribution is from an anonymous editor. I question the site as a reliable source on any article but it seems a "good article" would demand much better. Otr500 ( talk) 01:27, 18 April 2016 (UTC)