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 205 | Archive 206 | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 |
There is a disagreement on the talk page for Avengers Age of Ultron about using a Forbes article by a contributor. One editor strongly objects to use of the article:
In response, a few points were made:
1. Forbes is not disavowing the writer or the post. The language about opinions expressed is a standard legal disclaimer that means the writer's opinion is their own and not that of Forbes. Similar language appears at the front of director's commentaries on DVD or Blu-Ray discs. Just as the studio isn't "disavowing" the director, neither is Forbes. 2. Forbes contributors are not always unpaid and can be compensated. 3. The contributors on Forbes are not able to generate content without oversight. They can only do so once the editors have selected them based on their qualifications: "Every single one was hand picked by those who can best evaluate their knowledge — our own editors and reporters." ( [1])
Nevertheless, the editor quoted above also claimed:
In response to this: 1. The fact Forbes editorial team and staff selects who gets to contribute negates the assertion that this is user generated content akin to IMDB, where anyone can participate at any time. 2. Even if it could be considered user generated content, the policy has the following two exceptions:
The Forbes article in question was written by a professional journalist in the field of the film industry. Further, he was published by multiple reliable third party publications, including Variety, a film industry trade, where he was chief editor and correspondent in Europe for many years. In short, the Forbes contributor meets two of the exceptions to the policy, assuming it even applies.
All of these points have been ignored or dismissed without explanation by the opposing editor. It should also be noted that the article is not an opinion piece. It is a straight forward reporting of film spending and budgets in the UK and it contains links to the sources, which happen to be the actual budgets in question.
Is this Forbes contributor article an acceptable source? Depauldem ( talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
How were those comments "ridiculously wrong"?
I read your comments above as (vaguely, and in a limited sense) making the claim that Forbes contributor posts are to be treated as more reliable than a blog post unrelated to Forbes.
I'm struggling to see how showing sourcing which indicates the (lack of) editorial involvement is missing your point.
Finally, there's no reason to get shitty just because someone may have misinterpreted your comment.
I didn't slag you off or do anything like that. I just said "contra so and so...here's a thought."
Source: Elon Musk. "Elon Musk: The mind behind Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity ... - TED Talk Subtitles and Transcript - TED.com".
Article: Reusable launch system
Content:
The Space Shuttle external tank and the launch vehicle load frame were discarded, and the parts that were reusable took a 10,000-person group nine months to refurbish for flight. So the space shuttle ended up costing a billion dollars per flight.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinTime55 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
In the article Antisemitism and the New Testament, I believe two sources were removed in violation of WP:BIASED, which states the following:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.
That's exactly what I was trying to do. I believe the article should show different viewpoints.
Here's one diff showing a source that was removed (what Tovia Singer wrote): [3]. The exact source is [4]. This is a very influential rabbi. The complaint is that he's not a scholar, but I see his statement as being consistent with the last sentence of WP:BIASED.
Here's another statement that was removed:
In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 Jews appear to be called a synagogue of Satan.
The source is [5]. In this case, the author of the source is a very influential Evangelical Christian pastor called John F. MacArthur. Can we say that the view of a Christian leader regarding the Christian Bible cannot be used on Wikipedia just because he's not a scholar? This guy has sold countless books. His views are mainstream Evangelical Christian views. Why should that view be suppressed? It's not a fringe view. He's one of the "Top 100 Christian Leaders in America" according to Newsmax Media [6].
Let me repeat: I'm invoking WP:BIASED to make the claim that these sources should be included to express other significant viewpoints to ensure neutrality. At the very least, I think John F. MacArthur's view can be included if we say, "According to John F. MacArthur, ...".
Please, what do you think? Thanks in advance for your time and help. Dontreader ( talk) 06:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
They were both removed unilaterally by the same user without reaching consensus, around three days ago
list of opinions regarding evolution", however, because the topic is actually what is known about evolution, it is only WP:DUE to use sources that scholars on the subject agree are accurate (and we know that from what secondary sources say). Exactly the same principle applies to Antisemitism and the New Testament. By definition, someone with a strong faith believes certain things—quoting the opinions of such a person is not very informative because there is no body of knowledge that could lead to their conclusion—their reasoning might be faulty. However, quoting someone who has studied the broad history and language usage of the period is an entirely different matter because their conclusions will be part of accepted knowledge—perhaps not accepted by all other scholars but at least some of the views of the person being quoted would be accepted by other scholars of the topic, and that is what makes them a reliable and due source. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
On the article about the film, Vaxxed, Gorski, and his blog are being used as reference and text. This is a problem for this article in particular, because in my opinion, it requires, WP:OR, to determine who Gorski is, and what he represents, plus, he did not see the film and there are a myriad of excellent sources that point-to Vaxxed as being a fringe/propaganda film. Gorski blogs with a screen name in the ref used in the lede, which has been seized as any number of complaints when I tried to clear-up the ref which is attributed in the lede to Gorski, but bylined with Orca at the ref.--just messy and like I said, Gorski is not needed in this article. TeeVeeed ( talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
and, the blog in question;
Gorski is a non-RS expert being used outside his area of expertise - namely, a movie he hasn't watched and its filmmaker. I've taken the liberty of removing the claim myself. Rhoark ( talk) 13:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
(1) Gorski did see the trailer, that's why he got so excited. (2) The film purports to be a documentary, that's why Gorski got SO-o-o-o excited. That said, Gorsky criticized film not for its artistic value, but for its propaganda of quackery and for actual falsehoods. Therefore: (a) the argument that he is not a film critic is irrelevant, and (b) he is WP:RS in the context of the statements he did about the film. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the "Being Manly" blog [7] RS? Parkwells recently inserted large texts [8] of content that struck me as being somewhat of a "royal fanboy" / "whitewashing" nature to Education of the British Royal Family. When I looked into it, it was apparently all sourced to the "Being Manly" blog. (We have a lot of fanboys who have recently descended on this article inserting favorable content sourced to blogs and palace websites because, as they've argued "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [9]. I'd like to be cautious I'm not accidentally deleting really high-quality info in my hurry to move this fancruft off the page.) LavaBaron ( talk) 16:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Boddice's background is in "pain and emotion in modern history", AFAICT - and commentary about British Royal family educations seems outside his specific area of competence on an SPS. Sorry. Collect ( talk) 00:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Ritual Tension was recently put up for WP:AFD here. The subject's notability and coverage in reliable sources being discussed. One of the factors in deciding if the page is to keep is the reliability of one of the page's sources, an article by Trowser Press. The source is not included in Wikiprojects Music's list of unreliable sources but I would like feedback from others on whether or not Trowser Press is reliable. Meatsgains ( talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?
Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. [1] [2] [3] In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. [4] In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. [3] [5] Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. [6] [1] In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; [7] in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; [8] [9] in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. [10] In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." [2] [11] [12] [13] Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. [14]
References
|
---|
References
|
Issues with the reliability of sources have been raised in discussion. Participation from colleagues with expertise in identifying reliable sources is respectfully requested. Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Background: An editor, User:NuturalObserver, changed the text" After Nader's death, Iran fell into civil wara" to "a number of popular uprisings began", with the edit summary " Iran has never experienced a civil war in its 7,000 years history. This is a fact and not an opinion. Please remember that wikipedia is not a propaganda platform. Individuals attempting to use it as such will be sanctioned." Another editor reverted this. NuturalObserver then went to the talk page to argue their case. Given that this editor made several similar edit summaries I posted a polite message on their talk page urging civility, and responded at Talk:Kurds with:
"A number of sources mention civil war in Iran/Persia, including one between Artaxerxes II and Cyrus the Younger, eg [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Looks like there are historians who argue that there was at least one civil war.Then there's Persian Constitutional Revolution which seems to describe a civil war and calls it one, and another article Attempts at Constitutionalization in Iran#Civil War and Legacy of the Revolution which has a section on civil war (hm, aren't these duplicates?). As for the Zand period, "The restoration of Iranian control over the South Caucasus proved to he shortlived. and came to an abrupt end with the assassination of Nader Shah in 1747 Iran sank into renewed civil war..." [15] "Persia's sufferings did not end with Nader's death. The greater part of the next 50 years was taken up by civil war as his empire split."(note the word "renewed" [16]If anyone is going to be sanctioned by the way it would be you for the personal attack." (Their talk page post had another call for sanctions).
Looking again, I don't think my first source is one that should be used. The second source ia by Kurt Noll [17]. There's a post on my talk page User talk:Doug Weller#RE: Civil War in Iran that accuses Noll of ideological bias and not having the credentials (well, it says he has them but I think that's a typo). The third source is an old one by Cyril Elgood. The complaint about that is that Elgood puts it forward only as a hypothesis, although I don't see where he says that. My fourth source is an academic press book, Women in Iran from the Rise of Islam to 1800 edited by 2 academics [18] and the editor again says that Gulty Nashat only puts it forward as hypothesis, although again I can't find that, only statements such as "For example, in the civil war breaking out between Artaxerxes II and his brother Cyrus the Younger from 409 to 405 B.C.E., their mother, Queen Parysatis, constantly communicated". The editor has stated that you can't trust ancient Greek historians. My last 2 links are to a book by Arsène Saparov [19] who the editor calls "a highly controversial individual with questionable records". And then there are our 2 articles, which seem to be about the same subject, which suggest civil war at the beginning of the 20th century. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the argument I made:
"The claim that there was ever a civil war in Iran (Persia) is simply not corroborated and remains an unsupported and highly controversial claim. As I said, creative interpretations of certain historical events (regardless of by whom) simply does not carry a value. It is true that there are few researchers (with ideological motives) who have put-forth the notion of a civil war as a possible theory to explain certain events. In fact, Guity Nashat and Cyril Elgood, have both acknowledge this in their books - that it is merely a hypothesis as it lack evidence. Arsène Saparov for example, is a highly controversial individual with questionable records, and K. L. Noll (an ideologically oriented individual) does have the needed credentials in the subject matter to make comprehensive conclusions. These individuals are simply not well versed to hold any authority on the subject of Iranian history (the exception being Guity Nashat). Furthermore, one of the individual you referenced, use to work very closely with soviet researchers in-order to artificially engineer history for certain former soviet countries in the caucasus region. Not to mention that these individuals have been selectively hand-picked to advance a false proposition. It fails to take into account that the vast majority of historians disagree with that view. Ancient Greek historians and soviet researchers cannot be regarded as reliable sources, just as Iranian historians cannot be used as a reliable and neutral source on Greek history.
Regardless of who is used as a reference, one ought to differentiate between facts and opinions, which the statement: "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war, with multiple leaders trying to gain control over the country" does not. It asserts that "Iran fell into civil war" as a historic fact. This is flat out wrong. The opinion here is falsely passed on as a fact. We have no evidence whatsoever that would point to a civil war in Iran. Do remember that when you are referencing from a book, various important factors - such as the context and data, are ignored. A direct quotation itself is not an evidence. We have no corroborated evidence of a civil war in Iran - that is a fact".
The crux of my argument is that facts must be clearly differentiated from opinions, and a selectively picked quotation from controversial, biased, and ideological authors, does not mount to evidence. The statement: "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war" suggests a irrefutable historical fact. This absolutely not true. There are countless different interpretations, and the most controversial of all, is selected. When talking about a historical event, one must adopt an accepted historical narrative not a controversial one that is disagreed by the vast majority of historians and merely site the few in minority and use their interpretation as a historical fact! That amounts to rewriting of history.
I made a suggestion accordingly to change that statement to "a number of popular uprisings began", and limit the authority of the user that reverted my alternation because the bias and lack of knowledge of this individual in subject matter was self-evident. Therefore, it would make no sense for someone with a creative and biased interpretation of history, to be able to revert the alternations of those who seek to correct the narrative according to contemporary historical narrative. This comment was removed by the editor: Doug Weller for being "impolite". Furthermore, the editor justified this by stating that "there is also no freedom of speech on Wikipedia" and that my comments will be removed if it is to the personal distaste of the administrator. Accordingly, that editor creatively interpretes whatever I write, avoids an academic discussion, and threatens to block. He made several threats, some on my personal page others in reply. Such individuals should not be given the authority to administrate. The editors conduct must be reviewed.
Kind regards NuturalObserver ( talk) 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I absolutely agree Stephan Schulz. Unfortunately, Doug Weller has used a very general subject "are these sources suitable for suggesting Iran/Persia has experienced civil war?" and purposely diverted the discussion elsewhere. The original subject was not that "Iran/Persia has experienced civil war" - no. The topic is concerning a very particular timeline in Iran's history - Zand period. As I stated, and as Doug Weller accepted, the authors that was used as reference, use the term civil war suggestively as a hypothesis. The statement that "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war" is merely one interpretation of many. In fact, it is not a contemporary historical narrative. That is what I saying - that opinions must be differentiated from facts. Iran fell into civil war in the Zand period is merely the opinion of the editor - not a historical fact. However, that statement suggest that it is a historical fact. This must be corrected.
Kind regards NuturalObserver ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller has provided solid sources using the phrase "civil war". Obviously, it should be called civil war. If NuturalObserver can point to a source that dissents, we can discuss its stature and appropriate weight. Otherwise all objections are original research. Rhoark ( talk) 03:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am trying to create a wikipedia page for "Guru Gangeshwar Maharaj" a popular saint who became widely known across india and beyond. Guru Gangeshwar Maharaj is perceived by his devotees as dedicated all his life to bhagavan ved. The very objective of life was to propagate Vedic Knowledge in the various countries all over the world and make human life meaningful.
Now problem is i don't have too many sources also i am not sure with available sources will be accepted by Wikipedia community or not. Below is the list of sources that i have for now
1. PDF Version:[Sacred sound becomes sacred scripture: the Veda Mandir in Nashik, Maharashtra] uploaded by Borayin Larios.
2. Web Page at: [21]
Please suggest
Thanks, Aakash
Looking for comments on the validity fo [ |this edit] in the article Detroit Mercy Law Clinics.
The text and reference that I find to be inconsistent is as folows:
The university has been a pioneer in offering these clinics, in offering a whole array of possibilities all of which serve the poor and needier in our society, and in requiring this experience of all law students. Reference used
I find the ref to be, well, just deeply weird as it does not contain the words in the article title (Mercy, university, law or clinic). The sentence it supports is abotu the university rather than the law clinic, and I guess this ref is about to support the idea that Jesuits are interested in education? HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 01:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The site www.metal-archives.com has been discussed here before. One editor in particular, who is either incompetent or clueless as can be seen by constantly adding incorrect MOS:CAPS and other issues, always uses this source to support claims of notability for band or musician articles he's trying to create (see this edit as a clear example). Since the site is only user edited, I think it would be best to have it blocked. I know that there's an ant-SPAM WP:BLACKLIST, but is there one for sites that are known to have poor sourcing? If so, can we please add this site to it? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
On
Shailene Woodley, in the section Early life, someone added this sentence: "Her father is of English descent and her mother has African American, Creole, English, and Swiss ancestry."
, using
this as the source. How reliable is EthniCelebs?
Callmemirela 🍁
{Talk}
♑ 22:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although we may vet information to ensure its accuracy, we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate. You agree that you will not rely on our Service for any purposes which could result in a loss to you if our Service did not perform as expected and, in any event, you hereby release Ethnicelebs from any liability relating to our Service., so no. Rhoark ( talk) 15:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add a youtube clip to the Wahhabism article. Can I do this alongside a source that confirms the youtube link to be true/accurate? Statement: Al-Azhar scholar has referred to Wahhabism as a "Satanic faith"'.....academic book [22] & youtube video [23] Blizzio ( talk) 15:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This article makes use of the two sources, Left Foot Forward and Thefederalist.com. Both are recently established websites and are probably WP:UNDUE in comparison with other sources used in the article, like The Guardian, Reuters, or New York Times (besides, LFF is a political blog which falls into WP:USERGENERATED). -- Buzz105 ( talk) 16:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I posted a current YouTube clip URL [W 1] for a conference at the University of Richmond in an effort to remove a citation needed note in the article about economist Thomas M. Humphrey concerning a presentation he made with economist Richard Timberlake. I had no problem accessing the YouTube link when entering it with the web template and inserting it in the article. However, after clicking the citation in the article I got a message "Sorry, this is not available." This has also happened when I have attempted to cite YouTube in other articles I have written, such as Richmond Printmaking Workshop. Is there a way to correct the inaccessibility of YouTube clips as a source? Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 18:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Source: Aitken, Roger (2016-04-23). "Digital Gold 'Done Right' With DigixDAO Crypto-Trading On OpenLedger". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-04-28.</ref> unreliable source?.
Article: Ethereum.
Content: The source is used/reused three times on the page. The first instance (below) includes the full citation, and was added to the article first. The other two uses are cited by the use of the same "refname" (<ref name=forbes20160423/>
), and were added to the article later.
Digix
Ethereum itself is not a marketplace, but higher-level software could theoretically utilize Ethereum to establish an online marketplace platform
Development was funded by a crowd sale in August 2014
Issue: An editor has tagged all three of the above instances with {{unreliable?|reason=blog post|date=April 2016}}
Would appreciate another opinion from an editor who better understand Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. N2e ( talk) 12:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Forbes is not quite user-generated content. (If you think I'm wrong, link to your Forbes blog where you say so.) There is an application and vetting process for contributors, which they assert reduces the need for fact checking by picking people who will get it right themselves. Make of that what you will, but It does not engage in much oversight of content before publication. The editors do get involved in retracting errors after the fact. In the final analysis, it is reliable for some claims, but where there's controversial claims, BLP, or a very new article, there's good reason to be skeptical. Rhoark ( talk) 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm working on Multi-Love, the article for an album by Unknown Mortal Orchestra and I found this interview on a website called Cool Hunting. Its "about" page states it is "an award-winning publication" created in 2003, with worldwide correspondents, revolving around art, design, culture, etc. The parts I want to use would all be taken from the interview with the band's frontman, contained in the aforementioned link; the dialogue centers on recording the album. The author of this specific article has also, according to his website, written for The Guardian, the BBC, British Journal of Photography, etc. I want to use excerpts from the interview on the article I'm writing, specifically the parts where he conveys that emotion is greater than production value. (There's also a part where he discusses the title track of Multi-Love and in case I ever write the article for that song, this would be a great source.) Thank you for any input on this subject. pedro home | talk 19:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Full Fact is registered UK charity which does fact checking. As they work within their area of expertise and work with external experts, would information produced by Full Fact count as a reliable source? Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 14:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
How should Netflix be dealt with as a source for the titles of episodes of a television series? Typically, episode listings on Netflix can only be accessed if a person has a subscription to it, but can a screenshot of the titles saved to an image-uploading website be considered as a reliable source? Or should the episode listing of the series in question be linked to directly in the source with a note that it can only be accessed by subscribed users? Alex|The|Whovian ? 02:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thefamouspeople.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I just undid the addition of source http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/galileo-galilei-123.php to article Galileo Galilei because for this web-based article no author is given, no sources are listed, and anyone can add content ("Did We Miss Something In ...? Why Don't You Add It"). That's probably a no-brainer, but here's the problem: in article space I count 50 occurrences of references to similar articles on that site. Would it be OK to mass-remove them all, pointing to this section? - DVdm ( talk) 08:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe I already know the answer to this, but the other person keeps reinserting the source because they feel it is reliable. This applies to the Goshen Scout Reservation article.
Is the following source, [1] a valid source for.
In a traditional trek scouts hike from outpost to outpost during the week and experience various activities with significance to history or high adventure sports.
.
Personally I feel that the source is a non-notable interest piece about a local Boy Scout Troop and doesn't serve as a reliable source about anything for WP, let alone about what the editor is claiming it does.
References
Marauder40 ( talk) 12:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Can the following two online sources be considered reliable?
I, for one, can see no particular reason to have them removed.
Thank you,-- S.P.R. Lewitt ( talk) 16:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Can this be used for a credible source? http://parapedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_N._M._Tyrrell
Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Erowid_as_a_reliable_source Jytdog ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we use source information from it as references within articles? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't know if this is worth looking into, but the recently created user Lars Prestegarde ( talk · contribs) (hereby pinged) seems to be here to add content to various film related articles, with every edit (that I checked) including a link to a private website https://stephenfollows.com/ - DVdm ( talk) 13:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Depauldem: Per this statement that you know Mr. Follows, please disclose the nature of your acquaintance with him and whether you also know User Lars Prestergarde? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's unfortunate that any of Lars' edits have been removed. They added insignificant content which appears to have been chosen for the sole purpose of insinuating links to Follows' website. The content needs to be noteworthy and it needs to be verified by the source, not merely mentioned by the source or found on the source from aggregation of other websites. If Lars' future edits are similar to what he's shown so far, he will eventually be blocked. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion here which would benefit from additional input. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a dispute over sourcing on the entry for Columbia University Rape Controversy. A quotation and a statement about the length of messages are both sourced to an opinion piece by Naomi Schaeffer Riley from the NYPOST. I have argued that this is not a reliable source for a statement of fact about a person or a quotation because it's an opinion piece from a tabloid, and we need better sourcing for the statement. Additional contested sources are a post from Jezebel.com (a Gawker Media affiliate), and a Daily Beast article by Cathy Young, a political commentator who is highly critical of Sulkowicz. There is also some question regarding whether these are reliable sources for statements of fact elsewhere in the article. Nblund ( talk) 15:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello - There is currently a dispute on the European Graduate School webpage pertaining to the accreditation of this university. It appears on a published list of unaccredited institutions and diploma mills on the state of Maine's Department of Education website. [26] In the discussion at this page, a number of editors (including one who appears to be connected to the school) are arguing that the Maine list is "no longer valid" because a different page on their website simply refers readers to Wikipedia's own list of unaccredited schools. [27] Despite this alternative link, the Maine list is still very much live on their website. It also states on its landing page that "The Maine Department of Education has compiled the following list of post-secondary schools that are not accredited. The Department updates this list regularly, but non-accredited schools change frequently. Please conduct individual research before choosing a post-secondary institution." [28] This strikes me as a very clear case where the Maine source is reputable and should be included. It's from a state government website with regulatory authority over the validity of college degrees, and it is also used on several other WP articles about universities as a valid source for suspect accreditation status. Nonetheless a handful of editors are arguing very aggressively that it does not meet WP source standards and are trying to remove it from the article. Any advice and input is appreciated. Kizezs ( talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor removed "self-published" templates with
this edit with the edit summary, "no need for continual "Self-published" tags if you make it clear who is saying what." One example is a sentence that says, Nitschke has stated that nitrogen has a lower risk of an adverse reaction by the body than helium. Nitrogen has been advocated as a replacement for helium not because of reactions to helium, but due to a "temporary restriction on the availability of disposable helium in Australia (and New Zealand), helium has been difficult to procure."
This is sourced to
a newsletter written by Nitschke. Are self-published sources reliable as long as attribution is given? That's not my understanding of
WP:SELFPUB.
PermStrump
(talk) 07:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Quite a few incorrect assumptions here: Firstly, Nitschke does NOT sell suicide bags or exit bags, secondly he decided to walk away from his medical career rather than agree to limitations on what he could talk to people about, thirdly he never offered advice to Brayley about how to commit suicide (Brayley just wanted to let Nitschke know of his predetermined plans), and lastly I do not see why Permstrump is moving the query about WP:SELFPUBLISH back to the local talk page, when this is the place to discuss it. Is it perhaps because they are not getting their way here? Ratel ( talk) 02:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not see why Permstrump is moving the query about WP:SELFPUBLISH back to the local talk page, when this is the place to discuss it. Is it perhaps because they are not getting their way here?Seriously? I couldn't have been more transparent. I linked to the talkpage thread here and I made a comment on the talkpage. Then I tagged the editors who replied here in my response on the talkpage (except Ratel, who I'd just pinged in a comment directly above <5 minutes earlier, so I didn't want to be annoying with another ping when I knew you'd see the comment). Like I said here (and on the talkpage), I redirected the conversation to the talkpage, so that it wouldn't be split on two pages, making it easier for more of the editors that are interested in the topic to participate. There's a policy somewhere that suggests this and it was meant to be a helpful move, not deceitful. Editors need to cut it out with the ridiculous accusations against me or submit an AN/I, because I'm done wasting my time responding to unfounded accusations. PermStrump (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this source appropriate to support a small section on patents like this? Please note my COI disclosure. Pinging @ Timtempleton:, who added the section. I kind of need to address this item and the corresponding tag before I can nominate for GA and we seem to disagree on it. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This web site seems to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.-- 130.65.109.103 ( talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm not sure to what extent it's user-generated - the submit a correction link seems to link to an email form that someone will review rather than a direct edit link. However they seem to operate a totally unverifiable "black box" model which they call a "proprietary algorithm". On their About us it's not clear that any of the staff are qualified to do this kind of research. They seem to operate a Buzzfeed-like business model, though it doesn't seem CNW try to present the appearance of professional journalism that Buzzfeed does. Intelligent sium 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
(Outdent)
Then what makes Forbes a reliable source? What makes Forbes' net worth assertions not just guesses? I do not see Forbes providing any guarantees of their assertions about net worth. And Forbes's reporters do not have to divulge their sources (or any other reputable newspaper for that matter).
This topic has been dealt before with:
and perhaps elsewhere.
However, the External links tool reports that CNW is already in use on dozens of BLPs.
-- 130.65.109.103 ( talk) 16:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
"Alexa rank" != "reliable source." See also prior discussion and another prior discussion. Collect ( talk) 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that Google maps is a reliable source for the statement in the Lead of the Iran article that the modern country Iran is "also known as Persia". I disagree with that statement as well, but this is RSN, so we'll stick to the source.
If one types "Persia" into Google Maps, it displays the map of Iran. It doesn't call it Persia, but it does outline the modern state. Here's the result; you can type in Persia yourself to confirm. The editor claims that this indicates that Google Maps is therefore support for the statement, in the Lead, that Iran is also known as Persia.
I maintain that it's not, and that the maps search engine is just clever enough to figure out what you want. C.f. Albion and Loegria leading to maps displaying modern England. Again, this is purely to do with the Lead, and the situation has come up because the article is really short on support for Persia being a common alternative name for the modern country of Iran. It seems obvious to me, I've explained it to him, but he doesn't get it. Or maybe it's me that doesn't get it. Anyway, opinions? Cheers, Bromley86 ( talk) 12:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
They have been mentioned previously (at least five references) just they need an open eye. Aidepikiwnirotide ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Can you tell me if this can be used as a reliable source or not.
http://listserv.oclc.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9912&L=publib&D=1&F=P&P=17100
The article is Censorship in Cuba
And the content its supporting is "An article published on 19 November 1999 by Maria Elena Rodriguez, a journalist for the Cuba-Verdad Press, described the burning and burying of hundreds of books donated to Cuba by the government of Spain" currently footnote 25
It would appear that it's referring to an article on https://www.cubanet.org/ (where exactly, I dont know) and I dont know whether that is a reliable source either but as I have only got the link to the list serve and that is what is being cited it seems that is the one to investigate/challenge.
Many thanks for your help. What do I do if your opinion is that its not reliable ?
PS If you think it is reliable thats fine by me too, this, procedural thing, is after all a learning curve. Thanx again.
Hmcst1 (
talk) 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
1. TheJoeKorner, http://www.thejoekorner.com
2. All NYC Subway car type articles, example [R62 (New York City Subway Car)]
3.
| lines = {{NYCS const|car}}<!-- please ONLY change this line by editing the NYCS const template and ONLY when the source given at the bottom of the article changes -->
*This line is a part of the page's infobox. This site is a forum, which I have read does not qualify as a reliable source 72.226.15.68 ( talk) 20:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not a forum and it is reliable.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 21:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The reason I would like to report the site is because it does not allow for the changing of the services assigned line in subway car articles as they are somehow linked. It says , but I remember when you could change the route bullet using the NYCS Bull small "x" thing, and I have tried it and my edits were reverted back to the const template. This is very frustrating, and I am happy to discuss any issues on my talk page or the article mentioned's (R62) talk page. Thank you. 72.226.15.68 ( talk) 22:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
please ONLY change this line by editing the NYCS const template and ONLY when the source given at the bottom of the article changes
; they could have easily changed the information by editing {{
NYCS const}} but instead edited the article directly, which is largely why their changes were reverted.
epicgenius (
talk) 01:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)The question is whether or not the source for this series of articles, thejoekorner.com, is a reliable source. 72.226.15.68 ( talk) 01:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
TheJoeKorner, regardless– of whether he is still in touch with the MTA, should not be used as a source. The MTA must provide its own car assignments, as TheJoeKorner is still a self published source. 107.150.180.158 ( talk) 14:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm wondering whether this is a reliable source or not. It seems to be from some journal called Hemp Line Journal (I have no idea if it has any association with Journal of Industrial Hemp?), and I've so far only found the study on two sites, namely ratical.org and sativa-power.de, however, the study in question is cited by numerous hemp books that were published in the 1990s (Google Books lists its citation in several books, if you search "Hemp Line Journal", and the study is from 1992), so it seems to be a legitimate source. I haven't found the study republished by PubMed or anything like that, but perhaps that's because the study didn't reach their attention or something. So I wonder if I can use it here on Wikipedia? HempFan ( talk) 11:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So the question is if the two protein types in hemp actually are globular proteins, and have that blood plasma function as the Hemp Line Journal says.Well, as Jytdog and Roxy pointed out, this sources is not a WP:MEDRS source, so you can't use it for the claim you wanted to use it for. That's pretty much the end of the story. I'm commenting to offer you some advice: If you find a claim from a non-RS, and then do research yourself to determine whether or not that claim is likely true, you are engaging in Original research, even if you're using Wikipedia to do it. Nothing you discover by way of that original research can be added. Even if you were to find a MEDRS source which says hemp contains albumins, and another MEDRS source which says that injesting albumins boosts one's immune system, you would not be permitted to state that injesting hemp improves one's immune system. With any subject, there is the possibility of hidden variables, which can make a conclusion drawn from two well-supported facts wrong. This is especially true in medicine. In this case, the condition of the albumins in hemp might be unusable, or there might be additional chemical contents of the hemp that could render them inert, or there could be too many albumins in hemp for your body to process, leading your body to stop processing them at all or any of a number of other factors that could make your conclusion wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
While we're at it, I'd also like to ask if Nutritional Outlook is a reliable enough source, for the claim that hemp protein has a biological value of 87. The source in question, was denied/removed by Zefr in the same Hemp protein stub I'm working on, who called the source "spam", but it's actually not so much a random website as it is a magazine, I found out later. The PDF of the magazine can be downloaded here. On page 60, some guy named Richard Pierce, who's president of some Canadian hemp supplier, is quoted saying that hemp has a BV of 87. I don't think a magazine would lie about something trivial like that, and it's not a controversial claim either (it's not like they're saying that hemp has a super high BV). Unfortunately, not much information on hemp protein is available, so I'm working with what's available here. This is the only source on the entire internet I've found that lists the biological value of hemp protein. Also, quick question in case this source is meets your requirements, what reference template am I supposed to use when quoting magazines? Can someone point me to that? Thanks. HempFan ( talk) 15:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So a devotee of a swami would like to add some content about their teachings to the Wikipedia article, most of which is about his conviction as a rapist. I've found no reliable sources that summarize the teachings. The devotee has suggested a passage from a book where the swami summarized his teachings. The book is "Premananda Satsang Book 6". The book was apparently published by the Sri Premananda Trust (the swamis' estate) and you can get copies from the ashram in India or from various devotees.
See Talk:Swami_Premananda_(guru)#Premananda_Satsang_Book_6 for the content, which is a list of teachings.
In my view this is not a reliable source. Rather than just declaring that on the Talk page, I am getting input from the community here. Jytdog ( talk) 14:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If the only notability of the Swami is for his crime, then the page has no right to exist and it should be AfD'ed. For the subject to be notable there should be at least two good reliable sources that establish the notability.
Coming back to the issue raised, anything the Swami wrote or taught is WP:PRIMARY source. It can only be used to supplement what is covered in SECONDARY sources, but cannot be used as the main source on its own. This particular PRIMARY source is essentially self-published, and so it is doubly prohibited. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the different replies about François Asselineau
One more, request -it was archived before replies-:
Jytdog is absolutely correct. If you can verify that user generated content is accurate, then you can cite whatever source you used to verify it. So there are no cases in which user-generated content is useful on Wikipedia (except of course, for every word written in article space in all of wikipedia, naturally).
Don't let my little note confuse you: That was a joke (probably a bad one, but still). As a source, we NEVER use user generated content for stuff like this. We produce such content, but we do so with the strictest standards on the web, and we still can't cite other wikipedia pages. So if WP isn't an RS, then no other such source could even be considered.
MjolnirPants
Tell me all about it. 13:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
In IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth, this YouTube video is used as a source. The video does appear to include statements from a Disney employee; can these be treated as reliable sources for the description of the show? I am sceptical for a couple of reasons. I have no doubt this really is a Disney employee, and he's saying what he is supposed to say; in that sense these are "official" words. But the description is essentially the same as one might find on a Disney webpage marketing the event; there's no reason to treat it as a reliable source for anything other than "Disney describes it/markets it in this way". Is it good enough for that? Is it good for more than that? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a longstanding dispute at Laura Branigan over how best to indicate her contested birth year - a footnote sets out the current consensus, but one editor in particular continues to bring forward sources in an attempt to set out the "true" position and change the article wording. Anyway, one of the sources is this, in which the Library of Congress appears to have used an earlier version of the Wikipedia article to give its apparently preferred birth year (as shown at Additional Information: Birth Date). Is this a matter of concern? Am I right in assuming that normally we would consider the LoC as a WP:RS? Does this have any wider implications? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm engaged in a GA review of Gerri Major, and the nominator has asked me to check if the following three uses of FamilySearch are acceptable. I know that FamilySearch in general is not a reliable source, but in this case the original documents are imaged, so the source is not FamilySearch itself.
*Source:
1920 U.S. Census. Used to support:
Thanks for any input. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to know if the following can be counted reliable:
Molavi, Afshin (2005). The Soul of Iran: A Nation's Journey to Freedom (Revised ed.). England: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 152. ISBN 9780816049424.
Thanks. -- Mhhossein ( talk) 12:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Bruce Fife (2005),
Coconut Cures: Preventing and Treating Common Health Problems with Coconut, Piccadilly Books, Ltd., p. 151,
ISBN
978-0-94-159960-3{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)
Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I will like this discussion to continue to decide whether this source is reliable to use in food related articles because I can see that this source can be used in other food articles and I had a couple in mind where I wanted to use it after reading it. I found a Google Books url and added it on top of this discussion for further reference. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There's long (long long) discussions about sources and what is and isn't a suitable source on an article about Bitcoin-related financial schemes, and what might constitute a reliable source for legal implications of organizations like The DAO (organization), an unregulated investment scheme that's had over $100 million put into it. The trouble is that most of the sources that go into detail are WP:PROFRINGE or barely-laundered fringe advocates being quoted in more mainstream publications. We have various enthusiastic new users who ask for detail on sourcing at tremendous length. So I could do with your help.
And more eyes in general, if you can wade through the lengthy talk page. Cheers :-) - David Gerard ( talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Source: "Brad Pitt - A Quick Overview". Retrieved 1 January 2012.
Article: Apollo 13 (film)
Content:
Brad Pitt was offered a role in the film, but turned it down to star in Se7en.
The long standing position on Wikipedia is that Northern Ireland does not have a specific flag - it did at one stage (The Ulster Banner) but that is now associated with Unionism and has been excluded by various orders in Parliament from official use. There is currently a campaign over several articles by several SPA editors to reinstate it. As part of that argument they have advanced a recent video Northern Ireland Flag flown on horseback during the Queen's 90th birthday celebrations on 15th May 2016 - from 59m:50s, YouTube Mirror as evidence of official use. The video shows it briefly with horsemen in historical costumes there is no supporting material. It has been reverted by three experienced editors. Probably the best summary was: "A video is rarely a reliable source. That one certainly is not. It does not describe the flag or its significance, and interpreting it yourself is original research. Furthermore it is a copyright violation not an official news report, so not a reliable source or otherwise an appropriate link as we should never link to copyright violations" by User:JohnBlackburne. The discussion can be found here. No attempt is being made to reach consensus either, we simply have a series of editors inserting the material. Supporting evidence on the 'official' status can be found on the same talk page.
There are at least two questions that need attention:
Nothing is ever easy on issues here and of course we have the general 1RR restriction on Troubles articles. So some experienced and independent views would be appreciated ---- Snowded TALK 20:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It is still in common use; [1] especially by loyalists/ unionists, by some local government authorities under unionist control, to represent Northern Ireland internationally in some sporting competitions, and during some British royal events. [2]
References
In my view, the youtube video is out per WP:ELNEVER. The itv.com source is kind of OK but
So this is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I would leave it out. There must be better sources describing the general use of the flag at royal events. And let me just say, what a bummer to make such an ugly dispute from such a sweet event. Jytdog ( talk) 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
References
In May 2016, the St George's cross was flown from horseback [1] during The Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
References
you are getting into some nitty gritty details there. The first version you propose seems reasonable to me. Deals made on noticeboards are pretty much "binding" so the use should be limited to that sentence, in the body of the article. I would struggle with that being added to the lead as it is not generalizable. This seems to be a reasonable compromise. Miles can you live with that? Jytdog ( talk) 06:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You have actually made yourself clear now.
This source is not reliable for the way it is intended to be used. This article is apparently highly contested and this primary source and content based on is apparently going to be abused to make arguments broader than what it can bear, and it is not reliable for that purpose. Jytdog ( talk) 19:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
it will in the real world affect the claims in the citations saying it is unofficial and deprecated to make them less definitive. it is not coming into the article if this is how it will be used in the article; and that is the statement of intent. Jytdog ( talk) 00:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
This board is certainly a terrific resoure! I have another source-related question to ask here. In this [38] section of the Flag of Northern Ireland article is this [39] edit beginning "In 2013 US diplomat Richard Haass..." supported by this [40] source, an article from The Irish Times which pictures this flag, identifies it as "the Northern Ireland flag" and indicates there was at that time (December 2013) a proposal to replace it with a new flag? Miles Creagh ( talk) 16:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
And one more query. Would page 226 [41] of "Flags and Arms Across The World", by Whitney Smith (McGraw-Hill, 1980) support the inclusion of this flag in the pictorial table of flag icons at the Countries of the United Kingdom article? (Link is to my Google-plus page, to which I took the liberty of scanning the relevant page. The cite would be to the Smith book, obviously.) Miles Creagh ( talk) 16:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Heraldry Society. United States heraldry and List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of the United States, at the very least, depend heavily on this society as a source. It's the only source for Armorial of the Vice Presidents of the United States and is used in quite a few other articles. [43] Doug Weller talk 12:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#clinton_email_controversy_and_editorals which hinges on the intersection of BLP and RS which could use additional input. To avoid splitting the discussion please comment there. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I have looked around for a more appropriate forum for this question, but my search has been in vain. Hopefully, you would still provide me with some feedback.
My concern is with a short stub article that has a single line as a lead, which happens to be a quotation from a dictionary. I would appreciate views regarding my position. I do not think to start an article with a dictionary quote is good practice.
The way I read this unofficial guide ( WP:QUOTE) is that quotations should be used when they "explain things better and less controversially." Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary ( WP:NOTDIC), but dictionaries as sources should be used only with care, as this non-policy essay explains: ( WP:DICTDEF). But more importantly, as a matter of policy, the lead is ( WP:BETTER) the "summary of [the article's] most important contents" ( WP:LEAD), and "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence," not with a quote. And while quotes are not prohibited from the lead ( WP:LEADCITE) (I have used them many times), "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article," ( WP:WHENNOTCITE). If an editor thinks a citation belongs in the lead section, they "should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." ( MOS:LEAD).
I believe that starting an article with a dictionary quote relinquishes our duties as editors to explain and describe the issues we claim to know. It may be seen as a quick and lazy way of tackling the problem. As I mentioned above, I still think that quotes in the lead can be useful at times, but not here.
Thanks for your thoughts.
71.63.91.85 ( talk) 00:50, 25 May 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 205 | Archive 206 | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 |
There is a disagreement on the talk page for Avengers Age of Ultron about using a Forbes article by a contributor. One editor strongly objects to use of the article:
In response, a few points were made:
1. Forbes is not disavowing the writer or the post. The language about opinions expressed is a standard legal disclaimer that means the writer's opinion is their own and not that of Forbes. Similar language appears at the front of director's commentaries on DVD or Blu-Ray discs. Just as the studio isn't "disavowing" the director, neither is Forbes. 2. Forbes contributors are not always unpaid and can be compensated. 3. The contributors on Forbes are not able to generate content without oversight. They can only do so once the editors have selected them based on their qualifications: "Every single one was hand picked by those who can best evaluate their knowledge — our own editors and reporters." ( [1])
Nevertheless, the editor quoted above also claimed:
In response to this: 1. The fact Forbes editorial team and staff selects who gets to contribute negates the assertion that this is user generated content akin to IMDB, where anyone can participate at any time. 2. Even if it could be considered user generated content, the policy has the following two exceptions:
The Forbes article in question was written by a professional journalist in the field of the film industry. Further, he was published by multiple reliable third party publications, including Variety, a film industry trade, where he was chief editor and correspondent in Europe for many years. In short, the Forbes contributor meets two of the exceptions to the policy, assuming it even applies.
All of these points have been ignored or dismissed without explanation by the opposing editor. It should also be noted that the article is not an opinion piece. It is a straight forward reporting of film spending and budgets in the UK and it contains links to the sources, which happen to be the actual budgets in question.
Is this Forbes contributor article an acceptable source? Depauldem ( talk) 21:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
How were those comments "ridiculously wrong"?
I read your comments above as (vaguely, and in a limited sense) making the claim that Forbes contributor posts are to be treated as more reliable than a blog post unrelated to Forbes.
I'm struggling to see how showing sourcing which indicates the (lack of) editorial involvement is missing your point.
Finally, there's no reason to get shitty just because someone may have misinterpreted your comment.
I didn't slag you off or do anything like that. I just said "contra so and so...here's a thought."
Source: Elon Musk. "Elon Musk: The mind behind Tesla, SpaceX, SolarCity ... - TED Talk Subtitles and Transcript - TED.com".
Article: Reusable launch system
Content:
The Space Shuttle external tank and the launch vehicle load frame were discarded, and the parts that were reusable took a 10,000-person group nine months to refurbish for flight. So the space shuttle ended up costing a billion dollars per flight.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by JustinTime55 ( talk • contribs) 17:18, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
In the article Antisemitism and the New Testament, I believe two sources were removed in violation of WP:BIASED, which states the following:
Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.
Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs.
That's exactly what I was trying to do. I believe the article should show different viewpoints.
Here's one diff showing a source that was removed (what Tovia Singer wrote): [3]. The exact source is [4]. This is a very influential rabbi. The complaint is that he's not a scholar, but I see his statement as being consistent with the last sentence of WP:BIASED.
Here's another statement that was removed:
In Revelation 2:9 and 3:9 Jews appear to be called a synagogue of Satan.
The source is [5]. In this case, the author of the source is a very influential Evangelical Christian pastor called John F. MacArthur. Can we say that the view of a Christian leader regarding the Christian Bible cannot be used on Wikipedia just because he's not a scholar? This guy has sold countless books. His views are mainstream Evangelical Christian views. Why should that view be suppressed? It's not a fringe view. He's one of the "Top 100 Christian Leaders in America" according to Newsmax Media [6].
Let me repeat: I'm invoking WP:BIASED to make the claim that these sources should be included to express other significant viewpoints to ensure neutrality. At the very least, I think John F. MacArthur's view can be included if we say, "According to John F. MacArthur, ...".
Please, what do you think? Thanks in advance for your time and help. Dontreader ( talk) 06:30, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
Many Wikipedia articles rely on scholarly material. When available, academic and peer-reviewed publications, scholarly monographs, and textbooks are usually the most reliable sources.
They were both removed unilaterally by the same user without reaching consensus, around three days ago
list of opinions regarding evolution", however, because the topic is actually what is known about evolution, it is only WP:DUE to use sources that scholars on the subject agree are accurate (and we know that from what secondary sources say). Exactly the same principle applies to Antisemitism and the New Testament. By definition, someone with a strong faith believes certain things—quoting the opinions of such a person is not very informative because there is no body of knowledge that could lead to their conclusion—their reasoning might be faulty. However, quoting someone who has studied the broad history and language usage of the period is an entirely different matter because their conclusions will be part of accepted knowledge—perhaps not accepted by all other scholars but at least some of the views of the person being quoted would be accepted by other scholars of the topic, and that is what makes them a reliable and due source. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
On the article about the film, Vaxxed, Gorski, and his blog are being used as reference and text. This is a problem for this article in particular, because in my opinion, it requires, WP:OR, to determine who Gorski is, and what he represents, plus, he did not see the film and there are a myriad of excellent sources that point-to Vaxxed as being a fringe/propaganda film. Gorski blogs with a screen name in the ref used in the lede, which has been seized as any number of complaints when I tried to clear-up the ref which is attributed in the lede to Gorski, but bylined with Orca at the ref.--just messy and like I said, Gorski is not needed in this article. TeeVeeed ( talk) 16:12, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
and, the blog in question;
Gorski is a non-RS expert being used outside his area of expertise - namely, a movie he hasn't watched and its filmmaker. I've taken the liberty of removing the claim myself. Rhoark ( talk) 13:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
(1) Gorski did see the trailer, that's why he got so excited. (2) The film purports to be a documentary, that's why Gorski got SO-o-o-o excited. That said, Gorsky criticized film not for its artistic value, but for its propaganda of quackery and for actual falsehoods. Therefore: (a) the argument that he is not a film critic is irrelevant, and (b) he is WP:RS in the context of the statements he did about the film. Staszek Lem ( talk) 20:36, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
Is the "Being Manly" blog [7] RS? Parkwells recently inserted large texts [8] of content that struck me as being somewhat of a "royal fanboy" / "whitewashing" nature to Education of the British Royal Family. When I looked into it, it was apparently all sourced to the "Being Manly" blog. (We have a lot of fanboys who have recently descended on this article inserting favorable content sourced to blogs and palace websites because, as they've argued "it's her [the Queen's] 90th birthday" [9]. I'd like to be cautious I'm not accidentally deleting really high-quality info in my hurry to move this fancruft off the page.) LavaBaron ( talk) 16:32, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
Boddice's background is in "pain and emotion in modern history", AFAICT - and commentary about British Royal family educations seems outside his specific area of competence on an SPS. Sorry. Collect ( talk) 00:01, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
Ritual Tension was recently put up for WP:AFD here. The subject's notability and coverage in reliable sources being discussed. One of the factors in deciding if the page is to keep is the reliability of one of the page's sources, an article by Trowser Press. The source is not included in Wikiprojects Music's list of unreliable sources but I would like feedback from others on whether or not Trowser Press is reliable. Meatsgains ( talk) 22:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Should the following content be added to the article?
Since at least the late 1990s, Chrysler has performed poorly in independent rankings of reliability, quality, and customer satisfaction. [1] [2] [3] In 2011, James B. Stewart said in The New York Times that Chrysler's quality in 2009 was "abysmal," and cited that all Chrysler brands were in the bottom quarter of J. D. Power and Associates' customer satisfaction survey. [4] In 2015, Fiat Chrysler brands ranked at the bottom of J. D. Power and Associates' Initial Quality Study, and the five Fiat Chrysler brands were the five lowest ranked of 20 brands in their Customer Service Index, which surveyed customer satisfaction with dealer service. [3] [5] Chrysler has performed poorly in Consumer Reports annual reliability ratings. [6] [1] In 2009 and 2010, Chrysler brands were ranked lowest in the Consumer Reports Annual Auto Reliability Survey; [7] in 2014 and 2015, Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat were ranked at or near the bottom; [8] [9] in 2015 five of the seven lowest rated brands were the five Fiat Chrysler brands. [10] In 2016, all Fiat Chrysler brands (Dodge, Chrysler, Jeep, and Fiat; Ram was not included) finished in the bottom third of 30 brands evaluated in Consumer Reports' 2016 annual Automotive Brand Report Card; Consumer Reports cited "poor reliability and sub-par performance in our testing." [2] [11] [12] [13] Chrysler has consistently ranked near the bottom in the American Customer Satisfaction Index survey. [14]
References
|
---|
References
|
Issues with the reliability of sources have been raised in discussion. Participation from colleagues with expertise in identifying reliable sources is respectfully requested. Please comment at Talk:Chrysler#RfC: Reception; rankings in independent surveys and ratings of quality, reliability, and customer satisfaction. Thank you. Hugh ( talk) 15:29, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Background: An editor, User:NuturalObserver, changed the text" After Nader's death, Iran fell into civil wara" to "a number of popular uprisings began", with the edit summary " Iran has never experienced a civil war in its 7,000 years history. This is a fact and not an opinion. Please remember that wikipedia is not a propaganda platform. Individuals attempting to use it as such will be sanctioned." Another editor reverted this. NuturalObserver then went to the talk page to argue their case. Given that this editor made several similar edit summaries I posted a polite message on their talk page urging civility, and responded at Talk:Kurds with:
"A number of sources mention civil war in Iran/Persia, including one between Artaxerxes II and Cyrus the Younger, eg [11], [12], [13] and [14]. Looks like there are historians who argue that there was at least one civil war.Then there's Persian Constitutional Revolution which seems to describe a civil war and calls it one, and another article Attempts at Constitutionalization in Iran#Civil War and Legacy of the Revolution which has a section on civil war (hm, aren't these duplicates?). As for the Zand period, "The restoration of Iranian control over the South Caucasus proved to he shortlived. and came to an abrupt end with the assassination of Nader Shah in 1747 Iran sank into renewed civil war..." [15] "Persia's sufferings did not end with Nader's death. The greater part of the next 50 years was taken up by civil war as his empire split."(note the word "renewed" [16]If anyone is going to be sanctioned by the way it would be you for the personal attack." (Their talk page post had another call for sanctions).
Looking again, I don't think my first source is one that should be used. The second source ia by Kurt Noll [17]. There's a post on my talk page User talk:Doug Weller#RE: Civil War in Iran that accuses Noll of ideological bias and not having the credentials (well, it says he has them but I think that's a typo). The third source is an old one by Cyril Elgood. The complaint about that is that Elgood puts it forward only as a hypothesis, although I don't see where he says that. My fourth source is an academic press book, Women in Iran from the Rise of Islam to 1800 edited by 2 academics [18] and the editor again says that Gulty Nashat only puts it forward as hypothesis, although again I can't find that, only statements such as "For example, in the civil war breaking out between Artaxerxes II and his brother Cyrus the Younger from 409 to 405 B.C.E., their mother, Queen Parysatis, constantly communicated". The editor has stated that you can't trust ancient Greek historians. My last 2 links are to a book by Arsène Saparov [19] who the editor calls "a highly controversial individual with questionable records". And then there are our 2 articles, which seem to be about the same subject, which suggest civil war at the beginning of the 20th century. Doug Weller talk 14:27, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
This is the argument I made:
"The claim that there was ever a civil war in Iran (Persia) is simply not corroborated and remains an unsupported and highly controversial claim. As I said, creative interpretations of certain historical events (regardless of by whom) simply does not carry a value. It is true that there are few researchers (with ideological motives) who have put-forth the notion of a civil war as a possible theory to explain certain events. In fact, Guity Nashat and Cyril Elgood, have both acknowledge this in their books - that it is merely a hypothesis as it lack evidence. Arsène Saparov for example, is a highly controversial individual with questionable records, and K. L. Noll (an ideologically oriented individual) does have the needed credentials in the subject matter to make comprehensive conclusions. These individuals are simply not well versed to hold any authority on the subject of Iranian history (the exception being Guity Nashat). Furthermore, one of the individual you referenced, use to work very closely with soviet researchers in-order to artificially engineer history for certain former soviet countries in the caucasus region. Not to mention that these individuals have been selectively hand-picked to advance a false proposition. It fails to take into account that the vast majority of historians disagree with that view. Ancient Greek historians and soviet researchers cannot be regarded as reliable sources, just as Iranian historians cannot be used as a reliable and neutral source on Greek history.
Regardless of who is used as a reference, one ought to differentiate between facts and opinions, which the statement: "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war, with multiple leaders trying to gain control over the country" does not. It asserts that "Iran fell into civil war" as a historic fact. This is flat out wrong. The opinion here is falsely passed on as a fact. We have no evidence whatsoever that would point to a civil war in Iran. Do remember that when you are referencing from a book, various important factors - such as the context and data, are ignored. A direct quotation itself is not an evidence. We have no corroborated evidence of a civil war in Iran - that is a fact".
The crux of my argument is that facts must be clearly differentiated from opinions, and a selectively picked quotation from controversial, biased, and ideological authors, does not mount to evidence. The statement: "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war" suggests a irrefutable historical fact. This absolutely not true. There are countless different interpretations, and the most controversial of all, is selected. When talking about a historical event, one must adopt an accepted historical narrative not a controversial one that is disagreed by the vast majority of historians and merely site the few in minority and use their interpretation as a historical fact! That amounts to rewriting of history.
I made a suggestion accordingly to change that statement to "a number of popular uprisings began", and limit the authority of the user that reverted my alternation because the bias and lack of knowledge of this individual in subject matter was self-evident. Therefore, it would make no sense for someone with a creative and biased interpretation of history, to be able to revert the alternations of those who seek to correct the narrative according to contemporary historical narrative. This comment was removed by the editor: Doug Weller for being "impolite". Furthermore, the editor justified this by stating that "there is also no freedom of speech on Wikipedia" and that my comments will be removed if it is to the personal distaste of the administrator. Accordingly, that editor creatively interpretes whatever I write, avoids an academic discussion, and threatens to block. He made several threats, some on my personal page others in reply. Such individuals should not be given the authority to administrate. The editors conduct must be reviewed.
Kind regards NuturalObserver ( talk) 15:17, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Yes I absolutely agree Stephan Schulz. Unfortunately, Doug Weller has used a very general subject "are these sources suitable for suggesting Iran/Persia has experienced civil war?" and purposely diverted the discussion elsewhere. The original subject was not that "Iran/Persia has experienced civil war" - no. The topic is concerning a very particular timeline in Iran's history - Zand period. As I stated, and as Doug Weller accepted, the authors that was used as reference, use the term civil war suggestively as a hypothesis. The statement that "after Nader's death, Iran fell into civil war" is merely one interpretation of many. In fact, it is not a contemporary historical narrative. That is what I saying - that opinions must be differentiated from facts. Iran fell into civil war in the Zand period is merely the opinion of the editor - not a historical fact. However, that statement suggest that it is a historical fact. This must be corrected.
Kind regards NuturalObserver ( talk) 15:51, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
Doug Weller has provided solid sources using the phrase "civil war". Obviously, it should be called civil war. If NuturalObserver can point to a source that dissents, we can discuss its stature and appropriate weight. Otherwise all objections are original research. Rhoark ( talk) 03:17, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am trying to create a wikipedia page for "Guru Gangeshwar Maharaj" a popular saint who became widely known across india and beyond. Guru Gangeshwar Maharaj is perceived by his devotees as dedicated all his life to bhagavan ved. The very objective of life was to propagate Vedic Knowledge in the various countries all over the world and make human life meaningful.
Now problem is i don't have too many sources also i am not sure with available sources will be accepted by Wikipedia community or not. Below is the list of sources that i have for now
1. PDF Version:[Sacred sound becomes sacred scripture: the Veda Mandir in Nashik, Maharashtra] uploaded by Borayin Larios.
2. Web Page at: [21]
Please suggest
Thanks, Aakash
Looking for comments on the validity fo [ |this edit] in the article Detroit Mercy Law Clinics.
The text and reference that I find to be inconsistent is as folows:
The university has been a pioneer in offering these clinics, in offering a whole array of possibilities all of which serve the poor and needier in our society, and in requiring this experience of all law students. Reference used
I find the ref to be, well, just deeply weird as it does not contain the words in the article title (Mercy, university, law or clinic). The sentence it supports is abotu the university rather than the law clinic, and I guess this ref is about to support the idea that Jesuits are interested in education? HappyValleyEditor ( talk) 01:45, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The site www.metal-archives.com has been discussed here before. One editor in particular, who is either incompetent or clueless as can be seen by constantly adding incorrect MOS:CAPS and other issues, always uses this source to support claims of notability for band or musician articles he's trying to create (see this edit as a clear example). Since the site is only user edited, I think it would be best to have it blocked. I know that there's an ant-SPAM WP:BLACKLIST, but is there one for sites that are known to have poor sourcing? If so, can we please add this site to it? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
On
Shailene Woodley, in the section Early life, someone added this sentence: "Her father is of English descent and her mother has African American, Creole, English, and Swiss ancestry."
, using
this as the source. How reliable is EthniCelebs?
Callmemirela 🍁
{Talk}
♑ 22:57, 26 April 2016 (UTC)
The information on Ethnicelebs is provided for entertainment purposes only. Although we may vet information to ensure its accuracy, we make no assurances that all information on our Site is accurate. You agree that you will not rely on our Service for any purposes which could result in a loss to you if our Service did not perform as expected and, in any event, you hereby release Ethnicelebs from any liability relating to our Service., so no. Rhoark ( talk) 15:19, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
I would like to add a youtube clip to the Wahhabism article. Can I do this alongside a source that confirms the youtube link to be true/accurate? Statement: Al-Azhar scholar has referred to Wahhabism as a "Satanic faith"'.....academic book [22] & youtube video [23] Blizzio ( talk) 15:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
This article makes use of the two sources, Left Foot Forward and Thefederalist.com. Both are recently established websites and are probably WP:UNDUE in comparison with other sources used in the article, like The Guardian, Reuters, or New York Times (besides, LFF is a political blog which falls into WP:USERGENERATED). -- Buzz105 ( talk) 16:20, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
I posted a current YouTube clip URL [W 1] for a conference at the University of Richmond in an effort to remove a citation needed note in the article about economist Thomas M. Humphrey concerning a presentation he made with economist Richard Timberlake. I had no problem accessing the YouTube link when entering it with the web template and inserting it in the article. However, after clicking the citation in the article I got a message "Sorry, this is not available." This has also happened when I have attempted to cite YouTube in other articles I have written, such as Richmond Printmaking Workshop. Is there a way to correct the inaccessibility of YouTube clips as a source? Mitzi.humphrey ( talk) 18:03, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
Source: Aitken, Roger (2016-04-23). "Digital Gold 'Done Right' With DigixDAO Crypto-Trading On OpenLedger". Forbes. Retrieved 2016-04-28.</ref> unreliable source?.
Article: Ethereum.
Content: The source is used/reused three times on the page. The first instance (below) includes the full citation, and was added to the article first. The other two uses are cited by the use of the same "refname" (<ref name=forbes20160423/>
), and were added to the article later.
Digix
Ethereum itself is not a marketplace, but higher-level software could theoretically utilize Ethereum to establish an online marketplace platform
Development was funded by a crowd sale in August 2014
Issue: An editor has tagged all three of the above instances with {{unreliable?|reason=blog post|date=April 2016}}
Would appreciate another opinion from an editor who better understand Wikipedia policy on reliable sources. N2e ( talk) 12:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
Forbes is not quite user-generated content. (If you think I'm wrong, link to your Forbes blog where you say so.) There is an application and vetting process for contributors, which they assert reduces the need for fact checking by picking people who will get it right themselves. Make of that what you will, but It does not engage in much oversight of content before publication. The editors do get involved in retracting errors after the fact. In the final analysis, it is reliable for some claims, but where there's controversial claims, BLP, or a very new article, there's good reason to be skeptical. Rhoark ( talk) 17:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm working on Multi-Love, the article for an album by Unknown Mortal Orchestra and I found this interview on a website called Cool Hunting. Its "about" page states it is "an award-winning publication" created in 2003, with worldwide correspondents, revolving around art, design, culture, etc. The parts I want to use would all be taken from the interview with the band's frontman, contained in the aforementioned link; the dialogue centers on recording the album. The author of this specific article has also, according to his website, written for The Guardian, the BBC, British Journal of Photography, etc. I want to use excerpts from the interview on the article I'm writing, specifically the parts where he conveys that emotion is greater than production value. (There's also a part where he discusses the title track of Multi-Love and in case I ever write the article for that song, this would be a great source.) Thank you for any input on this subject. pedro home | talk 19:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Full Fact is registered UK charity which does fact checking. As they work within their area of expertise and work with external experts, would information produced by Full Fact count as a reliable source? Richard Nevell (WMUK) ( talk) 14:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
How should Netflix be dealt with as a source for the titles of episodes of a television series? Typically, episode listings on Netflix can only be accessed if a person has a subscription to it, but can a screenshot of the titles saved to an image-uploading website be considered as a reliable source? Or should the episode listing of the series in question be linked to directly in the source with a note that it can only be accessed by subscribed users? Alex|The|Whovian ? 02:05, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
thefamouspeople.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
I just undid the addition of source http://www.thefamouspeople.com/profiles/galileo-galilei-123.php to article Galileo Galilei because for this web-based article no author is given, no sources are listed, and anyone can add content ("Did We Miss Something In ...? Why Don't You Add It"). That's probably a no-brainer, but here's the problem: in article space I count 50 occurrences of references to similar articles on that site. Would it be OK to mass-remove them all, pointing to this section? - DVdm ( talk) 08:53, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
I believe I already know the answer to this, but the other person keeps reinserting the source because they feel it is reliable. This applies to the Goshen Scout Reservation article.
Is the following source, [1] a valid source for.
In a traditional trek scouts hike from outpost to outpost during the week and experience various activities with significance to history or high adventure sports.
.
Personally I feel that the source is a non-notable interest piece about a local Boy Scout Troop and doesn't serve as a reliable source about anything for WP, let alone about what the editor is claiming it does.
References
Marauder40 ( talk) 12:23, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
Hi everyone,
Can the following two online sources be considered reliable?
I, for one, can see no particular reason to have them removed.
Thank you,-- S.P.R. Lewitt ( talk) 16:28, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
Can this be used for a credible source? http://parapedia.wikia.com/wiki/George_N._M._Tyrrell
Please see discussion here: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Erowid_as_a_reliable_source Jytdog ( talk) 21:24, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Can we use source information from it as references within articles? - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 02:39, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
Don't know if this is worth looking into, but the recently created user Lars Prestegarde ( talk · contribs) (hereby pinged) seems to be here to add content to various film related articles, with every edit (that I checked) including a link to a private website https://stephenfollows.com/ - DVdm ( talk) 13:53, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
@ Depauldem: Per this statement that you know Mr. Follows, please disclose the nature of your acquaintance with him and whether you also know User Lars Prestergarde? Thanks. SPECIFICO talk 23:55, 5 May 2016 (UTC)
I don't think it's unfortunate that any of Lars' edits have been removed. They added insignificant content which appears to have been chosen for the sole purpose of insinuating links to Follows' website. The content needs to be noteworthy and it needs to be verified by the source, not merely mentioned by the source or found on the source from aggregation of other websites. If Lars' future edits are similar to what he's shown so far, he will eventually be blocked. SPECIFICO talk 11:58, 6 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion here which would benefit from additional input. Nikkimaria ( talk) 12:17, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a dispute over sourcing on the entry for Columbia University Rape Controversy. A quotation and a statement about the length of messages are both sourced to an opinion piece by Naomi Schaeffer Riley from the NYPOST. I have argued that this is not a reliable source for a statement of fact about a person or a quotation because it's an opinion piece from a tabloid, and we need better sourcing for the statement. Additional contested sources are a post from Jezebel.com (a Gawker Media affiliate), and a Daily Beast article by Cathy Young, a political commentator who is highly critical of Sulkowicz. There is also some question regarding whether these are reliable sources for statements of fact elsewhere in the article. Nblund ( talk) 15:43, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello - There is currently a dispute on the European Graduate School webpage pertaining to the accreditation of this university. It appears on a published list of unaccredited institutions and diploma mills on the state of Maine's Department of Education website. [26] In the discussion at this page, a number of editors (including one who appears to be connected to the school) are arguing that the Maine list is "no longer valid" because a different page on their website simply refers readers to Wikipedia's own list of unaccredited schools. [27] Despite this alternative link, the Maine list is still very much live on their website. It also states on its landing page that "The Maine Department of Education has compiled the following list of post-secondary schools that are not accredited. The Department updates this list regularly, but non-accredited schools change frequently. Please conduct individual research before choosing a post-secondary institution." [28] This strikes me as a very clear case where the Maine source is reputable and should be included. It's from a state government website with regulatory authority over the validity of college degrees, and it is also used on several other WP articles about universities as a valid source for suspect accreditation status. Nonetheless a handful of editors are arguing very aggressively that it does not meet WP source standards and are trying to remove it from the article. Any advice and input is appreciated. Kizezs ( talk) 21:07, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor removed "self-published" templates with
this edit with the edit summary, "no need for continual "Self-published" tags if you make it clear who is saying what." One example is a sentence that says, Nitschke has stated that nitrogen has a lower risk of an adverse reaction by the body than helium. Nitrogen has been advocated as a replacement for helium not because of reactions to helium, but due to a "temporary restriction on the availability of disposable helium in Australia (and New Zealand), helium has been difficult to procure."
This is sourced to
a newsletter written by Nitschke. Are self-published sources reliable as long as attribution is given? That's not my understanding of
WP:SELFPUB.
PermStrump
(talk) 07:34, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Quite a few incorrect assumptions here: Firstly, Nitschke does NOT sell suicide bags or exit bags, secondly he decided to walk away from his medical career rather than agree to limitations on what he could talk to people about, thirdly he never offered advice to Brayley about how to commit suicide (Brayley just wanted to let Nitschke know of his predetermined plans), and lastly I do not see why Permstrump is moving the query about WP:SELFPUBLISH back to the local talk page, when this is the place to discuss it. Is it perhaps because they are not getting their way here? Ratel ( talk) 02:10, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
I do not see why Permstrump is moving the query about WP:SELFPUBLISH back to the local talk page, when this is the place to discuss it. Is it perhaps because they are not getting their way here?Seriously? I couldn't have been more transparent. I linked to the talkpage thread here and I made a comment on the talkpage. Then I tagged the editors who replied here in my response on the talkpage (except Ratel, who I'd just pinged in a comment directly above <5 minutes earlier, so I didn't want to be annoying with another ping when I knew you'd see the comment). Like I said here (and on the talkpage), I redirected the conversation to the talkpage, so that it wouldn't be split on two pages, making it easier for more of the editors that are interested in the topic to participate. There's a policy somewhere that suggests this and it was meant to be a helpful move, not deceitful. Editors need to cut it out with the ridiculous accusations against me or submit an AN/I, because I'm done wasting my time responding to unfounded accusations. PermStrump (talk) 02:39, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Is this source appropriate to support a small section on patents like this? Please note my COI disclosure. Pinging @ Timtempleton:, who added the section. I kind of need to address this item and the corresponding tag before I can nominate for GA and we seem to disagree on it. CorporateM ( Talk) 13:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)
This web site seems to meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources.-- 130.65.109.103 ( talk) 02:08, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
To be fair, I'm not sure to what extent it's user-generated - the submit a correction link seems to link to an email form that someone will review rather than a direct edit link. However they seem to operate a totally unverifiable "black box" model which they call a "proprietary algorithm". On their About us it's not clear that any of the staff are qualified to do this kind of research. They seem to operate a Buzzfeed-like business model, though it doesn't seem CNW try to present the appearance of professional journalism that Buzzfeed does. Intelligent sium 14:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
(Outdent)
Then what makes Forbes a reliable source? What makes Forbes' net worth assertions not just guesses? I do not see Forbes providing any guarantees of their assertions about net worth. And Forbes's reporters do not have to divulge their sources (or any other reputable newspaper for that matter).
This topic has been dealt before with:
and perhaps elsewhere.
However, the External links tool reports that CNW is already in use on dozens of BLPs.
-- 130.65.109.103 ( talk) 16:04, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
"Alexa rank" != "reliable source." See also prior discussion and another prior discussion. Collect ( talk) 13:18, 1 May 2016 (UTC)
An editor is insisting that Google maps is a reliable source for the statement in the Lead of the Iran article that the modern country Iran is "also known as Persia". I disagree with that statement as well, but this is RSN, so we'll stick to the source.
If one types "Persia" into Google Maps, it displays the map of Iran. It doesn't call it Persia, but it does outline the modern state. Here's the result; you can type in Persia yourself to confirm. The editor claims that this indicates that Google Maps is therefore support for the statement, in the Lead, that Iran is also known as Persia.
I maintain that it's not, and that the maps search engine is just clever enough to figure out what you want. C.f. Albion and Loegria leading to maps displaying modern England. Again, this is purely to do with the Lead, and the situation has come up because the article is really short on support for Persia being a common alternative name for the modern country of Iran. It seems obvious to me, I've explained it to him, but he doesn't get it. Or maybe it's me that doesn't get it. Anyway, opinions? Cheers, Bromley86 ( talk) 12:38, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
They have been mentioned previously (at least five references) just they need an open eye. Aidepikiwnirotide ( talk) 20:39, 7 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Can you tell me if this can be used as a reliable source or not.
http://listserv.oclc.org/scripts/wa.exe?A2=ind9912&L=publib&D=1&F=P&P=17100
The article is Censorship in Cuba
And the content its supporting is "An article published on 19 November 1999 by Maria Elena Rodriguez, a journalist for the Cuba-Verdad Press, described the burning and burying of hundreds of books donated to Cuba by the government of Spain" currently footnote 25
It would appear that it's referring to an article on https://www.cubanet.org/ (where exactly, I dont know) and I dont know whether that is a reliable source either but as I have only got the link to the list serve and that is what is being cited it seems that is the one to investigate/challenge.
Many thanks for your help. What do I do if your opinion is that its not reliable ?
PS If you think it is reliable thats fine by me too, this, procedural thing, is after all a learning curve. Thanx again.
Hmcst1 (
talk) 19:12, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
1. TheJoeKorner, http://www.thejoekorner.com
2. All NYC Subway car type articles, example [R62 (New York City Subway Car)]
3.
| lines = {{NYCS const|car}}<!-- please ONLY change this line by editing the NYCS const template and ONLY when the source given at the bottom of the article changes -->
*This line is a part of the page's infobox. This site is a forum, which I have read does not qualify as a reliable source 72.226.15.68 ( talk) 20:30, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
It is not a forum and it is reliable.-- Kew Gardens 613 ( talk) 21:49, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
The reason I would like to report the site is because it does not allow for the changing of the services assigned line in subway car articles as they are somehow linked. It says , but I remember when you could change the route bullet using the NYCS Bull small "x" thing, and I have tried it and my edits were reverted back to the const template. This is very frustrating, and I am happy to discuss any issues on my talk page or the article mentioned's (R62) talk page. Thank you. 72.226.15.68 ( talk) 22:31, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
please ONLY change this line by editing the NYCS const template and ONLY when the source given at the bottom of the article changes
; they could have easily changed the information by editing {{
NYCS const}} but instead edited the article directly, which is largely why their changes were reverted.
epicgenius (
talk) 01:23, 13 May 2016 (UTC)The question is whether or not the source for this series of articles, thejoekorner.com, is a reliable source. 72.226.15.68 ( talk) 01:59, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
TheJoeKorner, regardless– of whether he is still in touch with the MTA, should not be used as a source. The MTA must provide its own car assignments, as TheJoeKorner is still a self published source. 107.150.180.158 ( talk) 14:30, 16 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm wondering whether this is a reliable source or not. It seems to be from some journal called Hemp Line Journal (I have no idea if it has any association with Journal of Industrial Hemp?), and I've so far only found the study on two sites, namely ratical.org and sativa-power.de, however, the study in question is cited by numerous hemp books that were published in the 1990s (Google Books lists its citation in several books, if you search "Hemp Line Journal", and the study is from 1992), so it seems to be a legitimate source. I haven't found the study republished by PubMed or anything like that, but perhaps that's because the study didn't reach their attention or something. So I wonder if I can use it here on Wikipedia? HempFan ( talk) 11:24, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So the question is if the two protein types in hemp actually are globular proteins, and have that blood plasma function as the Hemp Line Journal says.Well, as Jytdog and Roxy pointed out, this sources is not a WP:MEDRS source, so you can't use it for the claim you wanted to use it for. That's pretty much the end of the story. I'm commenting to offer you some advice: If you find a claim from a non-RS, and then do research yourself to determine whether or not that claim is likely true, you are engaging in Original research, even if you're using Wikipedia to do it. Nothing you discover by way of that original research can be added. Even if you were to find a MEDRS source which says hemp contains albumins, and another MEDRS source which says that injesting albumins boosts one's immune system, you would not be permitted to state that injesting hemp improves one's immune system. With any subject, there is the possibility of hidden variables, which can make a conclusion drawn from two well-supported facts wrong. This is especially true in medicine. In this case, the condition of the albumins in hemp might be unusable, or there might be additional chemical contents of the hemp that could render them inert, or there could be too many albumins in hemp for your body to process, leading your body to stop processing them at all or any of a number of other factors that could make your conclusion wrong. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 15:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
While we're at it, I'd also like to ask if Nutritional Outlook is a reliable enough source, for the claim that hemp protein has a biological value of 87. The source in question, was denied/removed by Zefr in the same Hemp protein stub I'm working on, who called the source "spam", but it's actually not so much a random website as it is a magazine, I found out later. The PDF of the magazine can be downloaded here. On page 60, some guy named Richard Pierce, who's president of some Canadian hemp supplier, is quoted saying that hemp has a BV of 87. I don't think a magazine would lie about something trivial like that, and it's not a controversial claim either (it's not like they're saying that hemp has a super high BV). Unfortunately, not much information on hemp protein is available, so I'm working with what's available here. This is the only source on the entire internet I've found that lists the biological value of hemp protein. Also, quick question in case this source is meets your requirements, what reference template am I supposed to use when quoting magazines? Can someone point me to that? Thanks. HempFan ( talk) 15:13, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
So a devotee of a swami would like to add some content about their teachings to the Wikipedia article, most of which is about his conviction as a rapist. I've found no reliable sources that summarize the teachings. The devotee has suggested a passage from a book where the swami summarized his teachings. The book is "Premananda Satsang Book 6". The book was apparently published by the Sri Premananda Trust (the swamis' estate) and you can get copies from the ashram in India or from various devotees.
See Talk:Swami_Premananda_(guru)#Premananda_Satsang_Book_6 for the content, which is a list of teachings.
In my view this is not a reliable source. Rather than just declaring that on the Talk page, I am getting input from the community here. Jytdog ( talk) 14:41, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
If the only notability of the Swami is for his crime, then the page has no right to exist and it should be AfD'ed. For the subject to be notable there should be at least two good reliable sources that establish the notability.
Coming back to the issue raised, anything the Swami wrote or taught is WP:PRIMARY source. It can only be used to supplement what is covered in SECONDARY sources, but cannot be used as the main source on its own. This particular PRIMARY source is essentially self-published, and so it is doubly prohibited. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 14:55, 14 May 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the different replies about François Asselineau
One more, request -it was archived before replies-:
Jytdog is absolutely correct. If you can verify that user generated content is accurate, then you can cite whatever source you used to verify it. So there are no cases in which user-generated content is useful on Wikipedia (except of course, for every word written in article space in all of wikipedia, naturally).
Don't let my little note confuse you: That was a joke (probably a bad one, but still). As a source, we NEVER use user generated content for stuff like this. We produce such content, but we do so with the strictest standards on the web, and we still can't cite other wikipedia pages. So if WP isn't an RS, then no other such source could even be considered.
MjolnirPants
Tell me all about it. 13:04, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
In IllumiNations: Reflections of Earth, this YouTube video is used as a source. The video does appear to include statements from a Disney employee; can these be treated as reliable sources for the description of the show? I am sceptical for a couple of reasons. I have no doubt this really is a Disney employee, and he's saying what he is supposed to say; in that sense these are "official" words. But the description is essentially the same as one might find on a Disney webpage marketing the event; there's no reason to treat it as a reliable source for anything other than "Disney describes it/markets it in this way". Is it good enough for that? Is it good for more than that? Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 00:43, 17 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a longstanding dispute at Laura Branigan over how best to indicate her contested birth year - a footnote sets out the current consensus, but one editor in particular continues to bring forward sources in an attempt to set out the "true" position and change the article wording. Anyway, one of the sources is this, in which the Library of Congress appears to have used an earlier version of the Wikipedia article to give its apparently preferred birth year (as shown at Additional Information: Birth Date). Is this a matter of concern? Am I right in assuming that normally we would consider the LoC as a WP:RS? Does this have any wider implications? Ghmyrtle ( talk) 10:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I'm engaged in a GA review of Gerri Major, and the nominator has asked me to check if the following three uses of FamilySearch are acceptable. I know that FamilySearch in general is not a reliable source, but in this case the original documents are imaged, so the source is not FamilySearch itself.
*Source:
1920 U.S. Census. Used to support:
Thanks for any input. Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 13:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to know if the following can be counted reliable:
Molavi, Afshin (2005). The Soul of Iran: A Nation's Journey to Freedom (Revised ed.). England: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 152. ISBN 9780816049424.
Thanks. -- Mhhossein ( talk) 12:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Bruce Fife (2005),
Coconut Cures: Preventing and Treating Common Health Problems with Coconut, Piccadilly Books, Ltd., p. 151,
ISBN
978-0-94-159960-3{{
citation}}
: CS1 maint: ref duplicates default (
link)
Thoughts? Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 20:08, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I will like this discussion to continue to decide whether this source is reliable to use in food related articles because I can see that this source can be used in other food articles and I had a couple in mind where I wanted to use it after reading it. I found a Google Books url and added it on top of this discussion for further reference. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 01:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
There's long (long long) discussions about sources and what is and isn't a suitable source on an article about Bitcoin-related financial schemes, and what might constitute a reliable source for legal implications of organizations like The DAO (organization), an unregulated investment scheme that's had over $100 million put into it. The trouble is that most of the sources that go into detail are WP:PROFRINGE or barely-laundered fringe advocates being quoted in more mainstream publications. We have various enthusiastic new users who ask for detail on sourcing at tremendous length. So I could do with your help.
And more eyes in general, if you can wade through the lengthy talk page. Cheers :-) - David Gerard ( talk) 19:42, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
Source: "Brad Pitt - A Quick Overview". Retrieved 1 January 2012.
Article: Apollo 13 (film)
Content:
Brad Pitt was offered a role in the film, but turned it down to star in Se7en.
The long standing position on Wikipedia is that Northern Ireland does not have a specific flag - it did at one stage (The Ulster Banner) but that is now associated with Unionism and has been excluded by various orders in Parliament from official use. There is currently a campaign over several articles by several SPA editors to reinstate it. As part of that argument they have advanced a recent video Northern Ireland Flag flown on horseback during the Queen's 90th birthday celebrations on 15th May 2016 - from 59m:50s, YouTube Mirror as evidence of official use. The video shows it briefly with horsemen in historical costumes there is no supporting material. It has been reverted by three experienced editors. Probably the best summary was: "A video is rarely a reliable source. That one certainly is not. It does not describe the flag or its significance, and interpreting it yourself is original research. Furthermore it is a copyright violation not an official news report, so not a reliable source or otherwise an appropriate link as we should never link to copyright violations" by User:JohnBlackburne. The discussion can be found here. No attempt is being made to reach consensus either, we simply have a series of editors inserting the material. Supporting evidence on the 'official' status can be found on the same talk page.
There are at least two questions that need attention:
Nothing is ever easy on issues here and of course we have the general 1RR restriction on Troubles articles. So some experienced and independent views would be appreciated ---- Snowded TALK 20:38, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
It is still in common use; [1] especially by loyalists/ unionists, by some local government authorities under unionist control, to represent Northern Ireland internationally in some sporting competitions, and during some British royal events. [2]
References
In my view, the youtube video is out per WP:ELNEVER. The itv.com source is kind of OK but
So this is making a mountain out of a molehill, and I would leave it out. There must be better sources describing the general use of the flag at royal events. And let me just say, what a bummer to make such an ugly dispute from such a sweet event. Jytdog ( talk) 02:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
References
In May 2016, the St George's cross was flown from horseback [1] during The Queen's 90th birthday celebration at Windsor, alongside the flags of Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales
References
you are getting into some nitty gritty details there. The first version you propose seems reasonable to me. Deals made on noticeboards are pretty much "binding" so the use should be limited to that sentence, in the body of the article. I would struggle with that being added to the lead as it is not generalizable. This seems to be a reasonable compromise. Miles can you live with that? Jytdog ( talk) 06:45, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
You have actually made yourself clear now.
This source is not reliable for the way it is intended to be used. This article is apparently highly contested and this primary source and content based on is apparently going to be abused to make arguments broader than what it can bear, and it is not reliable for that purpose. Jytdog ( talk) 19:20, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
it will in the real world affect the claims in the citations saying it is unofficial and deprecated to make them less definitive. it is not coming into the article if this is how it will be used in the article; and that is the statement of intent. Jytdog ( talk) 00:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
This board is certainly a terrific resoure! I have another source-related question to ask here. In this [38] section of the Flag of Northern Ireland article is this [39] edit beginning "In 2013 US diplomat Richard Haass..." supported by this [40] source, an article from The Irish Times which pictures this flag, identifies it as "the Northern Ireland flag" and indicates there was at that time (December 2013) a proposal to replace it with a new flag? Miles Creagh ( talk) 16:14, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
And one more query. Would page 226 [41] of "Flags and Arms Across The World", by Whitney Smith (McGraw-Hill, 1980) support the inclusion of this flag in the pictorial table of flag icons at the Countries of the United Kingdom article? (Link is to my Google-plus page, to which I took the liberty of scanning the relevant page. The cite would be to the Smith book, obviously.) Miles Creagh ( talk) 16:36, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/American Heraldry Society. United States heraldry and List of personal coats of arms of Presidents of the United States, at the very least, depend heavily on this society as a source. It's the only source for Armorial of the Vice Presidents of the United States and is used in quite a few other articles. [43] Doug Weller talk 12:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
There is a discussion going on at Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons/Noticeboard#clinton_email_controversy_and_editorals which hinges on the intersection of BLP and RS which could use additional input. To avoid splitting the discussion please comment there. Gaijin42 ( talk) 20:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
I have looked around for a more appropriate forum for this question, but my search has been in vain. Hopefully, you would still provide me with some feedback.
My concern is with a short stub article that has a single line as a lead, which happens to be a quotation from a dictionary. I would appreciate views regarding my position. I do not think to start an article with a dictionary quote is good practice.
The way I read this unofficial guide ( WP:QUOTE) is that quotations should be used when they "explain things better and less controversially." Not only is Wikipedia not a dictionary ( WP:NOTDIC), but dictionaries as sources should be used only with care, as this non-policy essay explains: ( WP:DICTDEF). But more importantly, as a matter of policy, the lead is ( WP:BETTER) the "summary of [the article's] most important contents" ( WP:LEAD), and "The article should begin with a short declarative sentence," not with a quote. And while quotes are not prohibited from the lead ( WP:LEADCITE) (I have used them many times), "Citations are often omitted from the lead section of an article, insofar as the lead summarizes information for which sources are given later in the article," ( WP:WHENNOTCITE). If an editor thinks a citation belongs in the lead section, they "should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." ( MOS:LEAD).
I believe that starting an article with a dictionary quote relinquishes our duties as editors to explain and describe the issues we claim to know. It may be seen as a quick and lazy way of tackling the problem. As I mentioned above, I still think that quotes in the lead can be useful at times, but not here.
Thanks for your thoughts.
71.63.91.85 ( talk) 00:50, 25 May 2016 (UTC)