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 205 | ← | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 | Archive 211 | → | Archive 215 |
Can the editors here ascertain the reliability of this website? This website is being used across multiple U2 related articles, but what I can infer is this is essentially a fan website. Their FAQ clearly indicates so, irrespective of what the editors at U2 articles think, this website does not have a mode of reliability. I request one of the users who uses this reference, Y2kcrazyjoker4 for his/her comment also. From one of the FACs pertaining to the U2 album No Line on the Horizon, I can see that this is a website run by a Wikipedia user Axver ( talk · contribs). How can we accept this website, even though according to the user, "For news articles, I cite my sources; for live U2 appearances, we have either attended in person (at which we take notes by hand or produce our own recording) or listened to it - live for contemporaneous concerts and interviews, or to recordings for older shows." My eyes were exce;ptionally drawn to this statement " if I do not believe information is verifiable and could be defended in peer review, I do not publish it. " Its kind of like the user amends information for making it passable in wikipedia. I urgently ask my fellow editors to discuss this. — IB [ Poke ] 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Is www.journalijar.com/ a reliable scientific journal? They are claiming a high impact factor although they are not even listed by Thomson Reuters. Can an article be created for this new plant specie relying on this paper?. It appears that the [ Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants]allows publication of new names in an online journal with an ISSN. Please see Article 29 However, the code doesn't take into account fake journals with valid ISSN. Would like to know what the Wikipedia community think about the reliability of this journal. -- Denown ( talk) 05:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Some edit error has happened. Somebody experienced kindly see to it. -- Denown ( talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Requesting input from additional editors here.
The sources in question are Wordpress sites called "Reporters without Borders: For Freedom of Information"::
The article in question is about an internet security company with $500 million in annual revenues that was recently acquired by Symantec for $4.65 billion.
The sources in question say stuff like "is best known for its Internet censorship equipment" and says the company is one of five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet."
One editor says it is basically a corporate trolling website, the other says it is an internationally recognized org with editorial control.
I have an affiliation/COI with the company (see here for example).
CorporateM ( Talk) 13:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Reporters without Borders is a reputable organization. What is the context though, are they talking about deep packet inspection or the great firewall of China or what? Elinruby ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Our article Muhammad currently contains at least one quote (the one beginning "be good to women") that apparently comes from the Quran or some other ancient source. If it was only attributed to the primary source this would definitely be a problem, but as it and the text surrounding it on both sides is attributed to three separate sources, making it difficult (though obviously not impossible) to determine where the quote comes from.
My question is this: Since it is policy that all quotations should have a source, should we also encourage naming the specific primary source for the quotation where possible?
When I write articles I prefer to specifically cite every piece of information to the source I got it from, but this is apparently more than Wikipedians are generally expected to do, and so I guess we must tolerate entire paragraphs of text with three consecutive sources, but this creates a grey area when it is a point of policy that a certain type of text (such as a quote) must always be attributed to some source.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
User Rjensen has repeatedly deleted any mention of Hillary Clinton in the Wikipedia entry for Neoliberalism [6], specifically section 5.3.3 on Feminism. Among Rjensen's reasons is his allegation that the original source (Against the Current magazine) is not reliable, since it's published by an avowedly socialist organization with "far-out fringe views" [7]. Yet he neglects to explain how the views conveyed in the cited source are "fringe views" (i.e., unpopular), and even if they were fringe views, he does not explain why they are wrong or why the factual content of the source is unreliable. This particular socialist magazine has a reputation for serious political analysis and rigorous fact-checking, and often includes footnotes in its print version. It counts many academics on its board of editors, who have collectively published numerous peer-reviewed publications. The authors of the article itself are academics with peer-reviewed publications, and no one to my knowledge has refuted any of their factual statements. The original source is here: [8]. One of the sites that reposted the article provides hyperlinks: [9]. And the footnoted version is available at [10]. Because Rjensen offers no other explanation as to why the source is not reliable, his objection constitutes an ad hominem attack: trying to discredit an argument based on the organizational sponsor of the journal in which it appeared, with a strong dose of old-fashioned redbaiting meant to delegitimize the source a priori.
A previous editor (C.J. Griffin) tried to accommodate Rjensen's objection by rewording the passage in question to make clear that the statements represented two scholars' viewpoints, not factual consensus, and even to specify that the source is a "socialist journal" [11]. But Rjensen deleted the passage nonetheless. Here is the passage modified by C.J. Griffin and deleted by Rjensen:
Diana C. Sierra Becerra and Kevin Young, writing in the socialist journal Against the Current, argue the larger support in feminism for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016 (NOW and "Feminists for Clinton") is an example of this shift in feminism towards neoliberalism considering that, in their view, Clinton has consistently favored policies devastating to most women and LGBT peoples. [1] They contend this shift reflects a narrowness of analysis, vision, and values that only apply to wealthy white women who share in the wealth from corporate capitalism and U.S. imperial power. [2] BiblioJordan ( talk) 02:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Thank you for the input re: reliability of source. As to your separate comment, which will be discussed elsewhere, the notion that the opinion expressed is "not intuitive" seems debatable ("people view Clinton and feminism"---WHICH people are you talking about?). Most observers, including Clinton partisans on the [Talk:Neoliberalism] page, acknowledge that Clinton has consistently supported neoliberal policies, though for some reason the same people are often opposed to labeling her "neoliberal." The source cited provides abundant evidence in support of the neoliberal characterization; it is not a willy-nilly insult thrown at Clinton. BiblioJordan ( talk) 14:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
("people view Clinton and feminism"---WHICH people are you talking about?)Umm, it should be quite clear from the context. The people referred to are those hypothetical folks who read that passage. I'm thinking you may not have understood what I said. Could you tell me what you think I said? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I THINK you said that the cited source "would change the way people view Clinton and feminism significantly." Am I reading too much into that statement to conclude that you are generalizing when in fact speaking about a specific audience? It might be more appropriate to say it "would change the way certain people view Clinton..." Or, more appropriate still: it "would change the way most liberal Clinton fans view Clinton, since it would expose the contradiction between their putative aversion to neoliberalism and ardent support for a neoliberal candidate..." BiblioJordan ( talk) 21:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are quite correct that the academic status of an author is no guarantee of accuracy; I raised it only because the background, qualifications, and motives of the authors are among the many (shifting) objections raised by commenters to impugn the source's reliability. Your most recent statement makes what I believe is a false distinction between "news," which is supposedly neutral and objective, and "analysis," which is presumably rife with misleading and tendentious statements. As the discipline of media studies makes abundantly clear, that distinction is itself extremely misleading, in that "news" pieces invariably reflect the priorities and values of owners/advertisers/editors/authors and "analysis" is often based on robust facts. Your comment contains another dubious asssertion: that "obscure publications" are inherently less reliable (or "neutral") than "mainstream sources." So-called "mainstream" sources are not mainstream in the sense of representing the popular will, but because they are owned by people and institutions with the resources to disseminate their "news" and because they abide by the unwritten doctrinal strictures of subservience to corporate and state power; that truism holds for the New York Times and MSNBC just as it holds for Fox News. Again, this is amply documented by the media studies scholarship, mostly notably by authors like Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, and Ben Bagdikian but also many, many others. Scholarship aside, though, there is a fairly easy way to resolve the question of source reliability: you or someone else could offer a refutation of even a single factual statement contained in the cited source---you could show that any of the source's many factual statements about Hillary Clinton's record is false. If you can't find an inaccurate statement in the article, you could find ANY inaccurate statement contained in the nearly 200 issues of "Against the Current" magazine. In the substantial hostile commentary about the source in question I have yet to see any editors even attempt this simple test. I eagerly await a response. BiblioJordan ( talk) 22:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are addressing the "neutrality"/"verifiability" policies, which is a separate discussion. But by my reading of the rules, I am not arguing against policy. I believe you are misinterpreting those policies: less prominent, "minority" viewpoints (or facts) are not prohibited, and Wikipedia actually encourages them provided they come from reliable sources and provided that the "majority" viewpoints/"facts" are also presented and given "due weight." That the characterization of Clinton as neoliberal is not a "tiny" minority view should be evident from the massive appeal of Sanders among Democratic voters over the past year. That said, I am not even sure that your position on Clinton is the "most prominent" within reliable sources: the view of Clinton as a neoliberal is probably a minority viewpoint among her supporters (though many corporate donors support her precisely because they see her as such); however, when we extend the range of "reliable sources" beyond just the corporate media to include academic scholarship, it's quite possible that that denialism is NOT in fact the majority view. Without having conducted an exhaustive review of the academic literature, I cannot say for sure. But my point is that "mainstream" media are not defined by Wikipedia as the most reliable sources; academic, peer-reviewed scholarship is generally deemed more reliable.
I reiterate my request. There is a fairly easy way to resolve the question of source reliability: you or someone else could offer a refutation of even a single factual statement contained in the cited source---you could show that any of the source's many factual statements about Hillary Clinton's record is false. BiblioJordan ( talk) 18:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, you have failed to address the question at hand: is Against the Current magazine, and this article specifically, a reliable source? It's irrelevant to the discussion here, but since you raised the point: I understand neoliberal feminism (or "corporate feminism," as in the article's subtitle) in precisely the same way that the article's authors do---a feminism which measures progress on women's rights largely by the number of women in positions of business and state leadership. A major point of the cited article is that liberal feminists have tended to accept neoliberal tenets (and have also condoned plenty of other nasty things), blurring the distinction between "liberal" and "neoliberal" feminisms. And the genealogies of those two schools are interlinked. Liberal and neoliberal feminisms are not entirely distinct or mutually exclusive ideologies. One person can be both. But again, irrelevant to the topic of this discussion board. BiblioJordan ( talk) 20:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies are clear: a source may contain opinions but also be a reliable source of factual information. While the article certainly contains opinions (as, indeed, ANY piece of writing does), it is also filled with factual assertions, which can either be confirmed or refuted. Curiously, I have yet to hear a refutation of any of those facts. Moreover, according to policy, opinions that are based on reliably-cited factual evidence can also merit inclusion in Wikipedia entries if they represent a significant viewpoint (even if a "minority" one) and are properly identified as opinions.
Again, you've raised a point that is not relevant to this particular discussion page, stating that the source "does not say Gloria Steinem has accepted neoliberal tenets" and claiming some sort of vindication with that observation. In case you haven't noticed, the discussion on this page is not about Steinem, it's about Clinton. On that count, we've already been through this ad nauseam, and the source remains clear: she's a neoliberal, corporate feminist (my personal view is that Steinem isn't far off, but again, irrelevant to our discussion here). Pointing out that the article does not explicitly identify Steinem as a neoliberal is a textbook red herring, completely irrelevant and diversionary, and increases my suspicion that you may in fact be a paid Clinton troll ( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-trolls-attack-people-online-article-1.2613980). BiblioJordan ( talk) 04:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a growing problem today with mainstream media on ongoing controversial topics that creates a catch-22 when it comes to evaluating sources and neutrality on WP. It comes from recognizing that there has been a clear trend in media to engage in more empathic, opinionated reporting rather than objective as to draw readership and stay competitive against other sources particularly the Internet (blogs, citizen journalism, etc.) and the current ongoing culture war. The right-leaning publications were much faster to take this approach and tend to be more extreme, exaggerating claims, engaging in attacks on reputation of the people they cover, etc., and hence why most right-leaning publications are routinely rejected as reliable source (eg Brietbart). But the left-leaning publications are not immune to this, they have just been much slower and far less obvious about using these approaches. The recent issue with the WaPost and Trump is a good example of this. The take-away here is to understand bias and opinion can come from what we have traditionally considered reliable sources that, say, 10 years ago, we'd not really have questioned.
How does this translate to WP? If one sticks to RS and UNDUE/WEIGHT from NPOV, then one creates a situation on a controversial topic with politicial leanings where the left-leaning media is readily accepted, the right-leaning media regularly rejected, and because one is only considering the balance that is presented in RSes (which are going to be weighted toward left-leaning), you create an article that is imbalanced to the left but appears neutral per UNDUE since that's the balance presented by RSes. Editors that then favor the left-leaning view will sit on that topic, stating they are right (which by strict reading of policy, they seem to be), and the right-leaning views will be rejected as fringe since no "RS" under their view covers it. Editors may suggest more right-leaning media but these get called out as unreliable by default, perpetuating the issue.
WP editors need to be much more cognizant of the larger situation in a controversial topic to understand where information from useable sources is coming from and what the big picture is, so that a more neutral picture that represents the appropriate balance that WEIGHT suggests when reviewing all usable sources, not just reliable sources. This requires understanding that right-leaning sources like Brietbart are acceptable for their opinion even if we are quick to dismiss facts from them, just as we'd accept opinions from left-leaning sources without question. In both cases, we should be careful to treat all opinions as suspect if they are dissenting views, per WP:YESPOV (too many times, statements from left-leaning sources if not labelled as an op-ed are taken as irrefutable facts even if they are contested by other sources, and YESPOV tells us we shouldn't make that assumption for contested statements). This is not to make a false balance, 50-50 on a controversial topic, but to make sure that the balance is reflecting the overall picture and all usable sources, not just what RS tells us to stick to for facts. Unfortunately, I've seen too many articles of late that want to keep to the "ivory tower" of only what the RSes say and not the larger picture, creating this implicit bias that only gets worse as the controversies continues with significant views coming from outside the block of RSes, exemplified by topics like Trump's campaign, feminism, and alt-right, to name a few. We need to be clear that RS is required to state anything as a fact in WP's voice, but a much larger body of sources can be used to include opinions that surround such controversies. -- MASEM ( t) 15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, quick question. I wanted to use https://ballotpedia.org as a source for the Lane Powell page. This source was going to accompany lawyers from the firm who left to accept a Bench position. This source is going to be used to just give credibility that they worked at Lane Powell and are now a judge. I wanted to get your thoughts before posting. ( LPWik97203 ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC))
Hylics was recently redirected because it supposedly was violating the copyright of a book published by AnVi OpenSource Knowledge Trust, which appears to be another one of those damn "publishers" that just collects our articles into a theme and prints them. Only this group is claiming that, despite being OpenSource (as in source code, as from the digital era) and discussing topics in ways that they somehow have a 1961 copyright.
I'm not really here to ask if sources from this company are unreliable -- they're outdated versions of our own articles at best -- I'm just here to point out that we appear to have a number of articles citing sources from this so-called "publisher."
My cat died today, it's late, and I've got errands to run in the morning, so I can't fix this right now. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
As Wikipedia's article on The Daily Signal notes, the website is published by The Heritage Foundation, a US conservative website. That political bias aside, I would like to question how reliable this source is in relation to Russia-related articles, such as the conflict currently arising in the Azov Battalion article. This is the source in question:
Here is what the source is supporting, in context: ( diff)
Some [1] [2] members of the unit were described as " neo-Nazi" [3] [4] [5] [nb 1], an accusation that Ukrainian ministerial adviser, Anton Geraschenko has denied. [6] [7] [nb 2] [nb 3] A spokesman for the unit has said this label applies to 10-20% of its recruits, and one commander attributed this ideology to misguided youth. [1] As a result of being a multicultural and multinational unit, those with far-right convictions live and fight side-by-side soldiers from 22 countries and various backgrounds, including Arabs, Russians, and Americans—as well as Christians, Muslims, and Jews. [2]
References
Andriy Diachenko, a spokesman for the Azov Brigade, said only 10% to 20% of the group's members are Nazis.
Within the Azov Battalion, however, are a minority of soldiers with far-right, neo-Nazi persuasions. And those soldiers do little to hide their beliefs.
[The] members of Azov Battalion ... have been labeled patriots by some, neo-Nazis by others....
The Azov Battalion was formed and armed by Ukraine's interior ministry. A ministerial adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, [was asked] if the battalion had any neo-Nazi links through the Social National Assembly. 'The Social National Assembly is not a neo-Nazi organisation,' he said. 'It is a party of Ukrainian patriots...'
References
On the reliability of using The Daily Signal in this article: I brought this up on Kaobear's talk page here when I was first reverted for my edits, and no reply has been given, and explained on this user's talk page (as well as the article talk page) as to why I believe The Daily Signal is too biased to be used on such a contentious article as this one.
Just Googling "daily signal russia" shows that this source is especially antagonistic towards Russia, as well as looking at the Heritage Foundation's articles on Russia shows serious NPOV issues with the source, which I believe are too contentious to be used in the Azov Battalion article, or any articles discussing Russia, the Russia–Ukrainian conflict, etc. But I would like to hear from WP:RS/N on the actual reliability of the source. Liborbital ( talk) 23:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
... Russian and some Western media outlets, as well as several U.S. lawmakers, point to the symbol of the Azov Battalion, which closely resembles the Nazi Wolfsangel.
Battalion soldiers disagree. They say their symbol stands for “idea of the nation,” which refers to Ukrainian nationalism.
Can the editors here ascertain the reliability of this website? This website is being used across multiple U2 related articles, but what I can infer is this is essentially a fan disagreed, re-adding the content and saying that you had "double checked the sources" and that the matter had been discussed at the talk page (which it had not). If you had double-checked the sources (as you claim) then surely you believe it to be a reliable source, as otherwise you would not have added the material? I disagreed with that, so I brought it here. I fail to see what your issue here is. Liborbital ( talk) 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises, in part, the questions of sourcing as the article relies on a single source for most of citations (160 in total). The source is:
This appears to be an obscure book published in Germany, and is both physically and linguistically inaccessible to the English language editors. Most of the claims/details are not supported by other sources, in contrast to Wikipedia's guidelines on "multiple RS sources".
Where other sources are used, the fall under WP:questionable sources, such as
For example, the military historian S.P. MacKenzie describes Williamson as a writer who attempts "to restore the tarnished reputation [of the Waffen-SS] and reiterate its superb fighting qualities" by relying on veterans' narratives, with "predictably positive results".
The latter is used for an WP:extraordinary claim of the subject's regiment destroying 270 tanks in 48 hours.
The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz. I hope editors of this noticeboard would be interested in reviewing the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would appreciate any feedback you could share. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A little edit war has broken out on Panama Papers over the folllowing paragraph, which I have removed several times now:
"* Thousands of mentions of Donald Trump [1] [2]"
My own position is that the addictinginfo reference,
is not reliable or encyclopedic, and the Huffington Post merely mentions him in passing with the remark that his involvement is unproven and even unlikely. Telesur, eh, I don't speak spanish very well, but it appears to be a rather sensationalist tabloid.
Now, the name Trump strictly speaking does appear but he is known for branding other people's business deals and in this article the phrase we decided was most neutral was "appears in the papers" but every other person who is described as "mentioned" is either a client or possibly a nominee of Mossack Fonseca. There is no evidence that Trump goes overseas for his tax shelters or ever heard of Mossack Fonseca. None. Possibly maybe a business partner or some of the people who bought condos from him may have used shell companies. No evidence of Trump doing this. None.
Now, I am not fond of the man and it irks me that I have to point out that this mention, untrue as it appears to me to be, is possibly libelous, either because he chooses to take the mention to be a slur on his business abilities, or to imply that he is involved in some sort of tax fraud or other funny business. We have been at great pains in this article to repeat that yes, some people may have done some illegal things, in fact it seems certain that sanctions were skirted at a minimum, but having an offshore shell company is not illegal and may be nothing more than prudent financial management in certain cases.
See the following, which *is* a reliable source and one of the news organizations that participated in the investigation: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article74789322.html
I think the paragraph should, if we absolutely need to have Trump in there, be rewritten to reflect the more balanced MCClatchy account, and preferably stay deleted, since there seems to be no definite info. If we are going to say Donald Trump is involved we need a better source. That's what I think. What say you? Oh and here is a diff of the most recent time I removed it [ [13]] There are several others; nobody seems to wat to discuss this. They just revert the revert. Maybe some of you can explain this so it gets understood? Elinruby ( talk) 19:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Then
( talk) 21:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC) addictinginfo.com doesn't seem usable at all; as far as I can tell, it's just a personal website. On the other hand, while I'm not hugely familiar with TeleSUR, it seems broadly-usable, at least at first glance; it's a state-funded news station, but that doesn't matter as long as it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which it seems to have. I don't see anything indicating that it's a 'sensationalist tabloid' or anything of that nature. -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I was wondering if The Good Web Guide would be usable as a RS. What works mildly in their favor is that their about page shows that they're a little discerning. There are also a few reviews of their print books here and there. ( [14], [15]) This book has a bio of one of their authors, which looks pretty impressive - although I will note that this is only one of their authors. (The same author is mentioned in this review on JSTOR.) If they all have criteria like this it'd be a good sign. Their authors also seem to be quoted here and there, but not heavily. They're also listed as a source in some books.
However what works against them is that there really isn't a lot of coverage about them since they launched in 2001. They're mentioned here and there, but it seems to always be by people who won the award. The Daily Mail covered them, but that's not really the greatest site to use. They seem to be reliable overall, but I just don't know if they're Wikipedia reliable. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently participating in an AfD where they're trying to use this book review as a RS to show notability. Part of the issue with this AfD is that the book in question was used at one point to back up major changes to an article for a living person, Seasick Steve. Essentially the book claims that everything SS has told people is a lie manufactured to market himself more efficiently, thus claiming that the article itself is largely incorrect. (There was a bit of an edit war as well.) If this source is usable then it could potentially help argue for the book's inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere.
My question is whether or not LJN is usable as a RS. It's hosted on Blogger, which is never a particularly good sign for sourcing but I'm aware that there are some exceptions to the blog rule. The site offers advertising, but they specifically state that reviews are not part of the package. The site and their Twitter account claim that they've won the Jazz Media Award, and the Parliamentary Jazz Awards, however I'm not entirely aware if these are major enough to make the site a RS/authority. They do seem to get name dropped, which works in their favor ( [16], [17], [18], [19]) and I do see where they've been cited as a source in some books.
Offhand it looks like they might be usable, but given the situation I really want to make sure that they are. Offhand the author only looks to be notable for this one book and if this source is reliable then it'd give weight to the idea of including this somewhere in the performer's article. (Where and how it'd be mentioned is something to think about, possibly a subsection in the article?)
However I'm also concerned that the claims in the book are fairly contentious and that at present we only have five sources (including the blog) showing any sort of coverage for the book - the majority of which are sources written in the same 1-2 day period, many of which essentially say the same thing. Would this all be strong enough to justify a mention in the article? I know that's somewhat more of a BLP issue, but it also somewhat falls within the sphere of this noticeboard. Basically, would these five sources be considered heavy enough to warrant inclusion, given that the claims can easily be seen as very contentious. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
As it relates to the Milo article, Nblund has misrepresented the discussion and conflated it with the BLM discussion. Here's the language for THAT article that was proposed:
"Several news sources indicated some protesters threatened violence, with some reporting on actual physical acts of violence against Milo and another person videotaping the protest. They also included links to a video recording of one protester grabbing a microphone and possibly hitting Milo in the face. During the interruption, some protesters shouted "Black Lives Matter" while security guards stood passively aside at the request of administrators present."
More at issue, Nblund has been suppressing any mention of threats of violence, or actual violence that several sources and published video demonstrates.
Sources:
Nblund has conflated discussions and confused things. There's no indication that this was a BLM protest, but Black Lives Matter was certainly mentioned. More important, per WP:RS, we don't disqualify something just because it come from a rightist or leftist source. Given this is very relevant to Milo, there's no issue of weight here or Undue when it's part of his Bio. The Reason.com article is possible opinion (and can be highlighted that way with inline text), but the rest most certainly are not Mattnad ( talk) 16:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a question as to whether Raman Kapur is a reliable source for the article Islamic terrorism. Kapur is a Director and Clinical Psychologist, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland. Kapur is an expert in all types of terrorism and has published articles in anthologies on terrorism. He is also a regular contributor to the BBC. The particular article in question was published in an anthology called “Global Terrorism: Issues and Developments” published by “Nova Science Publishers” in 2008. His article is Chapter 4: [20] [21], see page 136. Our edit concerns the abuse of religious texts to justify hatred. [22]. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have I have been made victorious with terror, and while I was sleeping...
While I think a secular, academic source is preferable to professional, biased theologians on how are religious texts used to justify violence, there are two main issues that come to mind after reading the above conversation and the paragraph in question. First, the text of the paragraph seems to involve Synthesis of published material. The source used to support the existence of this specific hadith is the Sahih al-Bukhari (9th century) by author Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 870). It is a primary source, and someone apparently picked a single hadith out of a collection which contains 2,602 independent hadith traditions and a few thousand repetitions of specific hadiths. Then the paragraph quotes Raman Kapur, who speaks about how Islamic terrorists "hijack" religious teachings to justify their own hatred. His quote may be reliable, but it is unclear whether it relates at all to this specific hadith or whether he is speaking about Islamic religious teachings in general. Frankly ,it seems like two unrelated texts were placed together to justify a Wikipedia editor's conclusion.
Second, Nblund seems to have confused the Quran with the hadiths. They are not nearly equivalent texts. Neither source was completed during the lifetime of Muhammad, who died in 632. The Quran is a 7th-century publication. Much of the text of the Quran was compiled based on the recollections of people who had heard Muhammad's oral teachings and memorized them. Among the scholars who were involved in the compilation of the book, the leading position is attributed to one Zayd ibn Thabit who died c. 660. Most sources place the compilation date of the book in the 650s and , with the exception of variations in transcription, the text has apparently received minimal changes ever since. It is the closest thing we have to a first-person account on Muhammad and his teachings.
Hadith stories and collections are later sources which attribute various "words, actions, or habits" to Muhammad. Most were written or compiled 2 or 3 centuries following the death of Muhammad. There are tens of thousands of individual hadiths, often mutually contradictory, compiled in many different collections. There are many theological disputes in Islam about which of these hadiths are accurate, and which are "false hadith" (equivalents to fabricated stories, literary forgeries, and apocrypha). There is even a minority of Muslims, the Quranists, which reject all of them and accept the Quran as the only authoritative source on Muhammad and his teachings. That a hadith exists does not mean that it is widely known, accepted, or even taken seriously.
Some of the theological ideas based on these hadiths are not exactly the stuff of legends, nor have any political significance. Consult the following Internet text which quotes specific hadiths from Al-Tirmidhi on whether it is theologically acceptable for a man to urinate standing up or sitting down, and what was the preferred practice by Muhammad himself. "...the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to a garden belonging to some people, and urinated standing up." Dimadick ( talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This webpage from Angle fire is extensively used in Operation Opera. Can it be counted reliable? Mhhossein ( talk) 07:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Good luck finding sources. Despite this being a lengthy and detailed text, it does not cite any sources and apparently the authors consulted sources who wished to remain anonymous. The explanation note at the bottom of the article states: "This article could not have been written without the kind help of 'The First of the Last', whom the authors would like to thank for their extensive support and patience, supplied on condition of anonymity. We would also like to thank several other sources who provided help and material, also on condition of anonymity."
Also one of the main claims made in the article is that there was a secret, unofficial alliance and cooperation between Iran and Israel, but many of their own sources apparently disagreed. The article notes state "Interestingly, all the Israeli authorities and unofficial sources we contacted in connection with this article declared that any information about Iranian-Israeli co-operation was 'improbable' or 'inconceivable'. Several either stressed they had never heard of anything to this effect, or that it 'could not have happened' and that Iran and Israel had never worked together - or even helped each other - before, during, or after the war between Iraq and Iran."
According to our article on Iran–Israel relations, the two states "severed all diplomatic and commercial ties" between them back in 1979. They have also been fighting a proxy war since the 1990s, each of them funding operations against the other. That they are allies or former allies seems to be an extraordinary claim. Dimadick ( talk) 09:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
In an article about Voyager, Ian Grey wrote: "It was a rare heavy-hardware science fiction fantasy not built around a strong man, and more audaciously, it didn't seem to trouble itself over how fans would receive this. On Voyager, female authority was assumed and unquestioned; women conveyed sexual power without shame and anger without guilt. Even more so than Buffy, which debuted two years later, it was the most feminist show in American TV history." [1]
It is stating this as though it is fact which I think is misleading. A quick search on google for "the most feminist show in history" and you'll see similar type of statements being made about various shows. This seems to be a opinion and not fact. As far as I know there are no metrics/rankings of shows regards to "how feminist they are". The article also specifically mentions the author "Ian Grey". Ian Grey was not involved with the show at all so a reader reading the article and comes to the portion "Ian Grey wrote" and they'll think "who is this Ian Grey guy? Was he involved with the show?" then click on the reference to find out that he is just a random bloke who wrote his thoughts on the show. Offnfopt (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment To establish whether some creative works were feminist or not, consulting actual feminist sources would probably be needed. The article note about the author states "Ian Grey is a New York writer whose work on visual arts, music, and identity politics have been published by Press Play, Baltimore City Paper, Lacanian Ink, The Prague Post, The Perfect Sound, Salon, Gothic.net, Smart Money, Time Out New York, and other forums. A novel on trauma, sex work and sound is now being shopped." It does not mention whether Grey is affiliated to any feminist organization. The publisher of this article is " RogerEbert.com", a website devoted to "movie criticism, commentary and community", not to feminism. I could not find who currently owns the website, but it states that it was established in a partnership between the companies "Ebert Digital" and "Table XI". Ebert Digital was apparently operated by Roger Ebert (d. 2013), Chaz Ebert (Roger's wife), and Josh Golden (who?).
Like most sources written by film critics, Grey's article does contain some level of hyperbole and POV statements. It argues that:
I am not American and I am personally unfamiliar with most of these shows (they get broadcast in my country only by minor channels with subscription fees), but claims for the existence of a recent widespread turn towards male supremacy and anti-feminism should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Dimadick ( talk) 09:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Is this source reliable enough to be used for the Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 article? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The Black Lives Matter entry contains this statement.
I suggested this instead:
Several sources say that one student, ( example1, example 2) Edward Ward, was affiliated with Black Lives Matter, but other organizations were also involved, and most mainstream sources don't mention BLM at all.
User James J. Lamben has cited two sources (the Washington Times, and Reason.com editor Robby Soave) that characterized these as Black Lives Matter protester(s) or characterized this as a BLM protest writ-large. Are the Washington Times or Robby Soave reliable sources for the statement that BLM activists (plural) were involved in the protest?
More generally: This has come up elsewhere, so are right-leaning outlets like the Washington Times, Breitbart, or Daily Caller reliable for factual, un-attributed statements of fact about left-wing protesters that are not covered elsewhere? Or should they be treated as opinion sources? Nblund ( talk) 20:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
we have a protest led by an outspoken BLM member, about BLM issues, where the protestors chant "Black Lives Matter"
Question for James J. Lambden {redacted}: WTF is a "BLM issue"? — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Generally, where there is a better (more reputable, higher-quality, higher-circulation) source available to support the same or similar assertion—as appears to be the case here—we should cite to those better sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, academic articles, etc.), and not the WT. If the WT is the only source available, I would generally seriously question whether the fact is noteworthy enough to include. There are probably (rare) cases where it's OK. I would not rely on the WT in any case involving a contentious statement, an anonymous source, or a BLP.
This conversation is really getting off-topic and I think says more about the particular political preferences of some of the editors involved than about the potential biases in the sources. The actual topic should be whether The Washington Times meets the criteria for a Reliable source. Is it a third-party source or directly involved in the events or ideas described? Does it have a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy"? To determine whether it meets such criteria, involved editors should provide some sources on the Times and its past handling of specific news items. Their personal opinions are neither reliable, nor easy to verify by other editors.
Also be weary of dated sources. One of the sources criticizing the Times, provided in a link above, is from 2009 and criticizes its affiliation with the controversial Unification Church. The ownership of the newspaper changed in 2010, and while it is probably still affiliated with the Church, its editorial policies may have changed. Dimadick ( talk) 06:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
A Huffington Post blog [25] by someone named Peter Reynosa is a major source for this BLP, eg his birthdate, his academic position and some of his work history.
This is also for these two sentences "When his paper came out in 1ate 1973, it was not attacked by other physicists or publicly rejected by the scientific community. It was just ignored. "Science just unnoticeably ignored him in a silent quietness of Indifference."[32] And there were several legitimate reasons why there were scientists who were very skeptical of his paper. Many thought it too speculative, lacking a good mathematical foundation, and also wrong in stating that if this kind of universe existed it would be made of equal parts matter and antimatter.[33] "
It's also used for "And the theory seemed to solve the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the monopole problem that had plagued the Big Bang" (this is something about Alan Guth and the source may also be a reference for the preceding statements - the article is pretty badly written, eg 31 sentences begin with "And"). It may be relevant that most of the content was added by JanetTom55 ( talk · contribs) who today added excerpts from poems by this author to 6 articles. I can't find much about the author, there's his short bio at the HuffPost [26] and he's written some articles about us, eg [27]. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Is
this YouTube video a reliable source for this statement, "Interestingly the 1992 version] did not have this Bible or creation in public schools reference at all and the claims regarding the various states of man (which did not have Lucy but is otherwise identical to the 2002 version) were credited to The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse which was being published by Chick publications at that time.
"? I gave my own opinion at
Talk:Chick tract#YouTube as a source, but another editor and I disagree and I've already been
unreverted once and don't want to get into an edit war.
—PermStrump
(talk) 21:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art site is useful for old versions of the tracks...up to a point. The variations page you referenced above is just above useless:
"Big Daddy: Info on evolution has changed (evolved?) in several versions. Four different versions exist, plus the original version which says on page twenty, "Then He was an invader from outer space?" (Later versions replaced the question with, "Are you saying He is the Creator?") Also, the Spanish version has the student's hair black... until page 16 and the last panel when it goes white (from fear?) The current Chinese version still has the older hair styles from earlier variations."
Thankfully Big Daddy is one of those tracts that got a more in depth review then the one on the tracts page. The existing link to Terrible Tommy's review is broken but can be resolved via internet archive. And it give far more detail:
""Big Daddy" is one of Jack Chick's oldest tracts. Unlike many other old JTC tracts, "BD" has staying power. Why? Because it evolves! There have been four, count 'em, FOUR, incarnations of "Big Daddy," each leap forward occurring about 5-10 years after real advances in real science turn the older versions into tribble feces.
[...]
A number of "Anti-evolution facts" that were preached in the original BD have been discarded in favor of more modern twists. One such fact was the absolutely hilarious contention that scientists had produced a barrel of oil from ten pounds of garbage in less than an hour, thus proving that it did NOT take millennia to form oil deposits. As usual, the students in the background called out: "In less than an hour?" "Wow, we didn't evolve!" And also, as usual, there were absolutely no scientific references to any such experiment.
[...]
Another purely idiotic "proof" was the spotted moth in England. This was in the original BD. Basically, what happened was simple: In England, after the aerial pollutions from the Industrial Revolution had caused the trees to darken in color, a species of spotted moths were forced to turn dark themselves to avoid the birds that preyed on them. Chick has his Jew Prof declaring that this darkening "proves evolution.""
So an tract on the evils of evolution itself evolves. It would be funny if not so ironic.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 22:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been asked before but I have checked every page I can think of and I can't find anything. What is the stance on eBooks as reliable sources? I'm not talking about self-published material. I'm talking about electronic versions of works that are professionally published that may or may not be available in traditional printed form. If they are considered reliable, how are they properly cited? They generally don't have page numbers, rather they have "location" numbers on the devices I have used and I don't know if those "locs" are consistent across devices or formats. Thanks. Mars Felix ( talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm having to ask this, but seeing as there seems to be a mass delusion in the professional wrestling WikiProject about our core policies: is this article from PWInsider a reliable source? I'm edging to "absolutely fucking not", given that the information in the source can't be verified against the apparent original source. Sceptre ( talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I should point out at this point in 2009, the professional wrestling sites were still working on the assumption that the late October PPV was going to be an iteration of Cyber Sunday (when it ended up being the first Bragging Rights) and the late December PPV was an iteration of Armageddon (when it ended up being the first TLC). Ultimately, the schedule of WWE events and storylines are subject to change at any point, and this is an industry that is still incredibly insular. I don't see anything in the sources provided that would satisfy the WP:CRYSTAL policy – especially regarding arenas, which aren't even in the PWI source – and if any wrestling site apart from the promoter itself is asserting certainties about future events, I would be personally very wary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dirtsheet, and it is better to take it slow and get it right. Sceptre ( talk) 12:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if anyone had heard of Cambridge Scholars. I remember it being brought up in a prior AfD where the general thought was that it might be considered a reliable source since it was considered a "minor independent, low quality but not vanity press publisher" (per Piotrus at this AfD).
A look around the Internet isn't very promising. This forum has people reporting that the publisher doesn't seem to do any actual editing and that some of their products appear to be quite poorly put together. This Reddit thread says that they're not a vanity publisher, but they're also not really all that reputable either - they seem to rank them just above vanity publishing overall. They also seem to get some of their clients by approaching people right out of school.
It looks like they're not usable (my gut instinct), but I'd like some sort of consensus on this for the future. The impression I get is that they're not a vanity or scam publisher, but they're not that far off from one either. They appear to put most or all of the editing and formatting work on the author (from what I've read in some forums) and a reputable publisher would at least do the formatting work. I've repeatedly seen people claim that they were told to take their work elsewhere to get edited and there are whispers that if you don't take it to one of "their" editorial partners then they'll ask you for more editing, although that last part is only hinted at here and there. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, folks.
There is a discussion about whether Jezebel should be treated as a blog or an RS (and, therefore, whether it can be quoted on a BLP). Although it calls itself a blog, Jezebel articles come from a staff of professional writers (unlike an SPS) and has an editorial board (supplying the fact-checking):
The sentence in question is:
In the interests of disclosure, the BLP in question is about me ( James Cantor, not User:James Cantor). So, I am not participating in the discussion, other than to notify folks of this post.
— James Cantor ( talk) 13:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website=
(
help)
First - the article at issue is not a reliable source for claims of fact. It is not written as an article which anyone would suppose is usable for claims of fact. (Articles on that website with titles such as "10 Reasons Why Ryan Lochte Is America's Sexiest Douchebag" should make this sufficiently clear) Second - opinions may be used if cited and sourced as opinion, and the consensus agrees that the person holding the opinion is competent to have their opinion noted. The author dos not hold any degree indicating education in the field of sexuality. I suggest that the article at issue is not a valid reliable source for use in a WP:BLP. Note: the issue of "blog" does not even need to arise in this discussion, it is an opinion column written by a person not known in the relevant field for his opinions. Collect ( talk) 20:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Is First Monday (journal) a legitimate peer-reviewed reliable source? I looked, but could not find any evidence of any article going through any sort of peer review. No published reviews, no names of reviewers -- in fact I can't really find any sources mentioning the First Monday journal other than the First Monday journal itself. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not directly apply here. It does not prevent us from having articles on future or predicted events. The policy states: "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic." and "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not."
The main issue here is not the prediction or speculation itself, it is that the source of it may be neither reliable nor notable to begin with. Based on the small number of available sources on it, First Monday (journal) seems to be generally ignored. By the way, I am quite surprised we have an article on it. We have deleted articles with better coverage and evidence of notability. Dimadick ( talk) 06:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/cultural_genocide.php From the wikipedia page; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cultural_heritage_in_Turkey
It claims to speak in the name of "Unecso" and that many churches in Turkey were destroyed. However on the official Unesco it's never shown to be such kind of statement or claim.
A 1974 survey identified 913 remaining churches and monastic sites in Turkey in various conditions. At half of these sites the buildings had vanished utterly. Of the remainder, 252 were ruined. Just 197 survived in anything like a usable state.
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink is here. One issue is a Slate source vs. what some reliable book sources state. And the other is what to relay based on what all these sources say. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
While The Guardian did indeed put We do this because Germany's right to exist is now a question of to be or not to be in quotation marks, it appears to be an original paraphrase that no one before The Guardian and no one since Wikipedia has attributed to the Nazi government. Can someone familiar with the topic check this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Korean gaming website, looking for Korean speakers to help out. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I came across this website being used as a source on Robert Black (serial killer), which is a WP:BDP. It seems to be a voluntary organisation and I suspect therefore that it is not a very strong source. Opinions on this are sought by those with experience in this area. There is a wider discussion on sourcing at the article's talk page that could do with some input too. -- John ( talk) 12:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if I can get a volunteer to look at Baloch Students Organization and evaluate it for RS issues? Balochistan is under heavy press censorship. So, not a lot of news comes out through mainstream news sources. I have had to use some liberal/rights groups sources, sometimes using multiple ones for corroboration. A review of the article with a critical eye to the sources would be helpful. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss whether or not to include a review, but it is worth a shot. :) In Best Horror Movies reviews can either be written by staff, or they can be reader submitted. Reader submitted reviews do not undergo any vetting, but occasionally a reader review is selected to go on to the main site. In this case the reviewer was Christopher DuValle, who I can't find any other reviews by. The review was reader submitted, not by staff, he does not appear to be an expert, and the review was not included in the main list of reviews on the site. Should we be using this review? - Bilby ( talk) 04:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There are a handful of references to the use of Wikinvest as a source which I've found:
Bringing this up as I've noted citations to Wikinvest in BioMarin Pharmaceutical which I'm considering replacing or expanding from the current bare URLs. Wanted to get a firmer notion from the community about the reliability and suitability as a source of Wikinvest. Note that at the bottom of a typical page (e.g. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/BioMarin_Pharmaceutical_(BMRN)/Data/Income_Statement ), there is a "Data Sources" statement. Inspecting the site, it appears that the data-oriented pages do not have accessible page history information, but other pages (e.g. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/BioMarin_Pharmaceutical_(BMRN) ) do have history information available and links to author profiles which appear to show real names in cases I've reviewed. Looking at the 'about' page ( http://www.wikinvest.com/site/About_Wikinvest) does not refer to editorial policies. To be fair, neither does Google Finance; however, in the Google case there is an decent disclaimer statement which pretty much says "don't use this unless you don't care about accuracy".
Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't see this commercial being a reliable source. [44] It's a blog entry for a company that sells a product called a War Lock. It was being used a staggering 56 times [45] as a source in the article on the AR-15. Aside from Frontier Tactical not appearing to have any editorial oversight, the blog post is simply to sell the War Lock. Every mention of every round talks about how it relates to the War Lock product. Some of those entries even admit that they haven't tried it, but he parts should work. I probably wouldn't even notice if it were a one off source for some obscure caliber, but 56 times? Does anyone see this passing RS? Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
6.5 WOA: This cartridge has not been tested with the War Lock™. We have not found enough currently available components to support the common use of this cartridge through the AR-15 platform. Use of this caliber would likely require significant effort and education for the enthusiast wanting this option.
Back in 2008 I asked about two sources useful in science fiction and fantasy bibliography. I got no answer back then and am hoping for one now.
The first is the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, usually shortened to ISFDB. This is crowdsourced, but it has editorial oversight; essentially every edit has to be approved by an administrator. The site contains bibliographic data drawn from direct examination of books and also from secondary sources. Where a copy of the book is used, that is noted as a "primary verification" meaning that the primary source was used to verify that data. Subsequent edits that modify any data that has been "primary verified" are held up by the admins to determine what the discrepancy is. Other reliable sources treat the ISFDB as reliable; for example, the online SF Encyclopedia, (SFE) probably the most authoritative encyclopedic source for science fiction, says "The more specialist Internet Speculative Fiction Database is incomparable for its cataloguing of books and stories published". The SFE includes thousands of links to the ISFDB in its articles.
I propose that the ISFDB be regarded as a reliable source for information which is marked as having been primary verified. For this to be abused, someone would have to modify the bibliographic data on something which has not already been primary verified (and most editions have), and then do the primary verification. Even this would not work if, as I know from experience is likely, the admins at the ISFDB prevented the bogus edits from going through. If the online SFE treats it as reliable, we should too.
The second is Galactic Central, which is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, a bibliographer. It contains an enormous number of magazines checklists, along with additional details. Again, the SFE regards this is as reliable and links to it many times. I can say from personal experience with both resources that they are remarkably accurate.
The article I'd like to use these resources for is Weird Tales, which I'd like to bring to featured status. The specific data I would like to source from these two resources is:
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
A specific editor has been adding links to www.worldofstadiums.com to support facts about stadiums. I don't think it meets the criteria for RS as it does not list who the editors are, whether there is any oversight of the information. If it's found that this site is not a reliable source I would like to suggest that it be placed on a blacklist, such as the spam blacklist, so that it cannot be added, and a bot be commissioned to remove all existing links to the site. At the very least, could someone please indicate how I could find the links so I can remove them manually? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering what you guys thought of this publisher. I'm compiling sources for an upcoming article and this one popped up for a book that's part history, part cookbook, with a large emphasis on history since there are essays about various historical locations in Virginia that precede any recipe(s). The publisher in question is John F. Blair, Publisher and the pedigree of its founder looks to be pretty good - the guy worked for a number of academic publishers before opening his own publisher. I was initially going to dismiss it but it looks like they've been running since the 1950s and I've seen their work published in various chain and academic bookstores, primarily those in the South since the publisher is southern based. The Library of Virginia has copies of their work, FWIW, and they're relatively selective about what they include, as is the University of Richmond. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 12:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. In the following text, (meant for the article pegging (sexual practice)), are the sources included considered reliable to support the corresponding content?.
Advice columnist Dan Savage wrote that he believes all men should try pegging at least once, as it may introduce them to a new enjoyable sexual activity and illuminate them to the receiver's perspective in sex. [1] According to the advocate of pegging Ruby Ryder, females can enjoy the experience of being active in pleasing their partner, reversing the typical roles, the strong intimacy implied in the exposed vulnerability, and the breaking of taboos. [2] [3]
Thanks in advance. Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC).
References
Please note that neither Ryder nor Savage are scientists. Talking a lot about a topic doesn't makes a man a scientist. Probably neither of them know what cyclic guanosine monophosphate is, let alone what is its relation to sex (they would know if they know about the basics of the pharmacology of sex because this compound is related to the mechanism of action of Viagra (sildenafil)). As far as I know, neither of them has published any book or paper that meets WP:MEDRS, the only difference is that Savage is famous while Ryder is lesser known. This isn't the the article about Savage, so his opinion is not especially relevant (note that his participation in the origin of the term “pegging” is described elsewhere in the article). Note also that Ruby Ryder has spoken about pegging in conferences, so her work isn't only self-published.
I am not especially interested in stating Ruby Ryder's viewpoint in pegging (sexual practice) but I am interested in describing the psychologically pleasurable aspect of pegging.
The reason that I added Ruby Ryder as a source is that originally a similar paragraph was added by a now uninvolved editor ( Special:Diff/728202306). I added Ruby Ryder as a source after an user removed the paragraph for being unsourced. Finally I again modified it to the current version attributing in-text the statement to Ruby Ryder to make it comply with WP:V per the "self-published sources are reliable about their own statements" (my paraphrasing).
So, if we do not use Ruby Ryder as a source, what would we use about this aspect of pegging?. We do not have any source that complies literally with Wikipedia's standards, as this is within the scope of the medicine of sexuality, therefore the relevant policy is WP:MEDRS. I searched the medical literature, and there is nothing written specifically about pegging (I elaborated about my findings of the literature in the talk page).
Regards.
Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 03:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC).
I don't think WP:MEDRS would really apply to the statements above. If it were applied, neither Savage nor Ryder would be remotely acceptable. I agree with the other editors here: Savage and Ryder could be reliable sources for statements of opinion, but Savage's opinion is notable and Ryder's really isn't, so citing that blog is not really consistent with WP:DUE. I'm sure with a little digging, something more authoritative could be found. Nblund talk 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
These outlets have a history of outrageous stories like this and this. A user advised another editor to post here in relation to this being used as a source for SAS involvement in the recent Battle of Fallujah, so I figured I'd beat them to it. Note how these outlets cite other tabloid outlets making the same unverified claims. This is a constant in these sources' coverage of the war against ISIS. Tabloid sources using anonymous/unclear sources and/or citing each other, detailing the utterly secret operations of elite special forces in a warzone. This reeks of war propaganda. Eik Corell ( talk) 09:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Factual claims (not the "headline claims") seem in order for those sources. The only area where the tabloids named really fail is in "celebrity gossip" where I do not trust even the New York Times. If you avoid the "headlines" you will find the actual stories are compliant with other sources, as a rule. Collect ( talk) 23:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, can you please tell me why Soccerway is called reliable and StadiumDB and World of Stadiums are probably not? I don't understand the criteria I guess. Kind regards, Farmnation
I want to use this link for some information in The Red Tour but I am hesitant. Is insing.com a reliable source for a GA or not??? Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 04:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
And also: myxph.com TAYLOR SWIFT Paints Manila RED! Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 11:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving reliable sources and original research at Talk:Aptronym#Original research and lack of sources. Sundayclose ( talk) 21:35, 15 July 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 205 | ← | Archive 207 | Archive 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 | Archive 211 | → | Archive 215 |
Can the editors here ascertain the reliability of this website? This website is being used across multiple U2 related articles, but what I can infer is this is essentially a fan website. Their FAQ clearly indicates so, irrespective of what the editors at U2 articles think, this website does not have a mode of reliability. I request one of the users who uses this reference, Y2kcrazyjoker4 for his/her comment also. From one of the FACs pertaining to the U2 album No Line on the Horizon, I can see that this is a website run by a Wikipedia user Axver ( talk · contribs). How can we accept this website, even though according to the user, "For news articles, I cite my sources; for live U2 appearances, we have either attended in person (at which we take notes by hand or produce our own recording) or listened to it - live for contemporaneous concerts and interviews, or to recordings for older shows." My eyes were exce;ptionally drawn to this statement " if I do not believe information is verifiable and could be defended in peer review, I do not publish it. " Its kind of like the user amends information for making it passable in wikipedia. I urgently ask my fellow editors to discuss this. — IB [ Poke ] 18:35, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Is www.journalijar.com/ a reliable scientific journal? They are claiming a high impact factor although they are not even listed by Thomson Reuters. Can an article be created for this new plant specie relying on this paper?. It appears that the [ Code of Nomenclature for algae, fungi, and plants]allows publication of new names in an online journal with an ISSN. Please see Article 29 However, the code doesn't take into account fake journals with valid ISSN. Would like to know what the Wikipedia community think about the reliability of this journal. -- Denown ( talk) 05:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Some edit error has happened. Somebody experienced kindly see to it. -- Denown ( talk) 05:21, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Requesting input from additional editors here.
The sources in question are Wordpress sites called "Reporters without Borders: For Freedom of Information"::
The article in question is about an internet security company with $500 million in annual revenues that was recently acquired by Symantec for $4.65 billion.
The sources in question say stuff like "is best known for its Internet censorship equipment" and says the company is one of five "Corporate Enemies of the Internet."
One editor says it is basically a corporate trolling website, the other says it is an internationally recognized org with editorial control.
I have an affiliation/COI with the company (see here for example).
CorporateM ( Talk) 13:28, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Reporters without Borders is a reputable organization. What is the context though, are they talking about deep packet inspection or the great firewall of China or what? Elinruby ( talk) 19:04, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Our article Muhammad currently contains at least one quote (the one beginning "be good to women") that apparently comes from the Quran or some other ancient source. If it was only attributed to the primary source this would definitely be a problem, but as it and the text surrounding it on both sides is attributed to three separate sources, making it difficult (though obviously not impossible) to determine where the quote comes from.
My question is this: Since it is policy that all quotations should have a source, should we also encourage naming the specific primary source for the quotation where possible?
When I write articles I prefer to specifically cite every piece of information to the source I got it from, but this is apparently more than Wikipedians are generally expected to do, and so I guess we must tolerate entire paragraphs of text with three consecutive sources, but this creates a grey area when it is a point of policy that a certain type of text (such as a quote) must always be attributed to some source.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:31, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
User Rjensen has repeatedly deleted any mention of Hillary Clinton in the Wikipedia entry for Neoliberalism [6], specifically section 5.3.3 on Feminism. Among Rjensen's reasons is his allegation that the original source (Against the Current magazine) is not reliable, since it's published by an avowedly socialist organization with "far-out fringe views" [7]. Yet he neglects to explain how the views conveyed in the cited source are "fringe views" (i.e., unpopular), and even if they were fringe views, he does not explain why they are wrong or why the factual content of the source is unreliable. This particular socialist magazine has a reputation for serious political analysis and rigorous fact-checking, and often includes footnotes in its print version. It counts many academics on its board of editors, who have collectively published numerous peer-reviewed publications. The authors of the article itself are academics with peer-reviewed publications, and no one to my knowledge has refuted any of their factual statements. The original source is here: [8]. One of the sites that reposted the article provides hyperlinks: [9]. And the footnoted version is available at [10]. Because Rjensen offers no other explanation as to why the source is not reliable, his objection constitutes an ad hominem attack: trying to discredit an argument based on the organizational sponsor of the journal in which it appeared, with a strong dose of old-fashioned redbaiting meant to delegitimize the source a priori.
A previous editor (C.J. Griffin) tried to accommodate Rjensen's objection by rewording the passage in question to make clear that the statements represented two scholars' viewpoints, not factual consensus, and even to specify that the source is a "socialist journal" [11]. But Rjensen deleted the passage nonetheless. Here is the passage modified by C.J. Griffin and deleted by Rjensen:
Diana C. Sierra Becerra and Kevin Young, writing in the socialist journal Against the Current, argue the larger support in feminism for Hillary Clinton in 2008 and 2016 (NOW and "Feminists for Clinton") is an example of this shift in feminism towards neoliberalism considering that, in their view, Clinton has consistently favored policies devastating to most women and LGBT peoples. [1] They contend this shift reflects a narrowness of analysis, vision, and values that only apply to wealthy white women who share in the wealth from corporate capitalism and U.S. imperial power. [2] BiblioJordan ( talk) 02:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Thank you for the input re: reliability of source. As to your separate comment, which will be discussed elsewhere, the notion that the opinion expressed is "not intuitive" seems debatable ("people view Clinton and feminism"---WHICH people are you talking about?). Most observers, including Clinton partisans on the [Talk:Neoliberalism] page, acknowledge that Clinton has consistently supported neoliberal policies, though for some reason the same people are often opposed to labeling her "neoliberal." The source cited provides abundant evidence in support of the neoliberal characterization; it is not a willy-nilly insult thrown at Clinton. BiblioJordan ( talk) 14:56, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
("people view Clinton and feminism"---WHICH people are you talking about?)Umm, it should be quite clear from the context. The people referred to are those hypothetical folks who read that passage. I'm thinking you may not have understood what I said. Could you tell me what you think I said? MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 16:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
I THINK you said that the cited source "would change the way people view Clinton and feminism significantly." Am I reading too much into that statement to conclude that you are generalizing when in fact speaking about a specific audience? It might be more appropriate to say it "would change the way certain people view Clinton..." Or, more appropriate still: it "would change the way most liberal Clinton fans view Clinton, since it would expose the contradiction between their putative aversion to neoliberalism and ardent support for a neoliberal candidate..." BiblioJordan ( talk) 21:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are quite correct that the academic status of an author is no guarantee of accuracy; I raised it only because the background, qualifications, and motives of the authors are among the many (shifting) objections raised by commenters to impugn the source's reliability. Your most recent statement makes what I believe is a false distinction between "news," which is supposedly neutral and objective, and "analysis," which is presumably rife with misleading and tendentious statements. As the discipline of media studies makes abundantly clear, that distinction is itself extremely misleading, in that "news" pieces invariably reflect the priorities and values of owners/advertisers/editors/authors and "analysis" is often based on robust facts. Your comment contains another dubious asssertion: that "obscure publications" are inherently less reliable (or "neutral") than "mainstream sources." So-called "mainstream" sources are not mainstream in the sense of representing the popular will, but because they are owned by people and institutions with the resources to disseminate their "news" and because they abide by the unwritten doctrinal strictures of subservience to corporate and state power; that truism holds for the New York Times and MSNBC just as it holds for Fox News. Again, this is amply documented by the media studies scholarship, mostly notably by authors like Noam Chomsky, Edward Herman, and Ben Bagdikian but also many, many others. Scholarship aside, though, there is a fairly easy way to resolve the question of source reliability: you or someone else could offer a refutation of even a single factual statement contained in the cited source---you could show that any of the source's many factual statements about Hillary Clinton's record is false. If you can't find an inaccurate statement in the article, you could find ANY inaccurate statement contained in the nearly 200 issues of "Against the Current" magazine. In the substantial hostile commentary about the source in question I have yet to see any editors even attempt this simple test. I eagerly await a response. BiblioJordan ( talk) 22:07, 18 June 2016 (UTC)
You are addressing the "neutrality"/"verifiability" policies, which is a separate discussion. But by my reading of the rules, I am not arguing against policy. I believe you are misinterpreting those policies: less prominent, "minority" viewpoints (or facts) are not prohibited, and Wikipedia actually encourages them provided they come from reliable sources and provided that the "majority" viewpoints/"facts" are also presented and given "due weight." That the characterization of Clinton as neoliberal is not a "tiny" minority view should be evident from the massive appeal of Sanders among Democratic voters over the past year. That said, I am not even sure that your position on Clinton is the "most prominent" within reliable sources: the view of Clinton as a neoliberal is probably a minority viewpoint among her supporters (though many corporate donors support her precisely because they see her as such); however, when we extend the range of "reliable sources" beyond just the corporate media to include academic scholarship, it's quite possible that that denialism is NOT in fact the majority view. Without having conducted an exhaustive review of the academic literature, I cannot say for sure. But my point is that "mainstream" media are not defined by Wikipedia as the most reliable sources; academic, peer-reviewed scholarship is generally deemed more reliable.
I reiterate my request. There is a fairly easy way to resolve the question of source reliability: you or someone else could offer a refutation of even a single factual statement contained in the cited source---you could show that any of the source's many factual statements about Hillary Clinton's record is false. BiblioJordan ( talk) 18:36, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, you have failed to address the question at hand: is Against the Current magazine, and this article specifically, a reliable source? It's irrelevant to the discussion here, but since you raised the point: I understand neoliberal feminism (or "corporate feminism," as in the article's subtitle) in precisely the same way that the article's authors do---a feminism which measures progress on women's rights largely by the number of women in positions of business and state leadership. A major point of the cited article is that liberal feminists have tended to accept neoliberal tenets (and have also condoned plenty of other nasty things), blurring the distinction between "liberal" and "neoliberal" feminisms. And the genealogies of those two schools are interlinked. Liberal and neoliberal feminisms are not entirely distinct or mutually exclusive ideologies. One person can be both. But again, irrelevant to the topic of this discussion board. BiblioJordan ( talk) 20:59, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia policies are clear: a source may contain opinions but also be a reliable source of factual information. While the article certainly contains opinions (as, indeed, ANY piece of writing does), it is also filled with factual assertions, which can either be confirmed or refuted. Curiously, I have yet to hear a refutation of any of those facts. Moreover, according to policy, opinions that are based on reliably-cited factual evidence can also merit inclusion in Wikipedia entries if they represent a significant viewpoint (even if a "minority" one) and are properly identified as opinions.
Again, you've raised a point that is not relevant to this particular discussion page, stating that the source "does not say Gloria Steinem has accepted neoliberal tenets" and claiming some sort of vindication with that observation. In case you haven't noticed, the discussion on this page is not about Steinem, it's about Clinton. On that count, we've already been through this ad nauseam, and the source remains clear: she's a neoliberal, corporate feminist (my personal view is that Steinem isn't far off, but again, irrelevant to our discussion here). Pointing out that the article does not explicitly identify Steinem as a neoliberal is a textbook red herring, completely irrelevant and diversionary, and increases my suspicion that you may in fact be a paid Clinton troll ( http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/king-hillary-clinton-paying-trolls-attack-people-online-article-1.2613980). BiblioJordan ( talk) 04:43, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a growing problem today with mainstream media on ongoing controversial topics that creates a catch-22 when it comes to evaluating sources and neutrality on WP. It comes from recognizing that there has been a clear trend in media to engage in more empathic, opinionated reporting rather than objective as to draw readership and stay competitive against other sources particularly the Internet (blogs, citizen journalism, etc.) and the current ongoing culture war. The right-leaning publications were much faster to take this approach and tend to be more extreme, exaggerating claims, engaging in attacks on reputation of the people they cover, etc., and hence why most right-leaning publications are routinely rejected as reliable source (eg Brietbart). But the left-leaning publications are not immune to this, they have just been much slower and far less obvious about using these approaches. The recent issue with the WaPost and Trump is a good example of this. The take-away here is to understand bias and opinion can come from what we have traditionally considered reliable sources that, say, 10 years ago, we'd not really have questioned.
How does this translate to WP? If one sticks to RS and UNDUE/WEIGHT from NPOV, then one creates a situation on a controversial topic with politicial leanings where the left-leaning media is readily accepted, the right-leaning media regularly rejected, and because one is only considering the balance that is presented in RSes (which are going to be weighted toward left-leaning), you create an article that is imbalanced to the left but appears neutral per UNDUE since that's the balance presented by RSes. Editors that then favor the left-leaning view will sit on that topic, stating they are right (which by strict reading of policy, they seem to be), and the right-leaning views will be rejected as fringe since no "RS" under their view covers it. Editors may suggest more right-leaning media but these get called out as unreliable by default, perpetuating the issue.
WP editors need to be much more cognizant of the larger situation in a controversial topic to understand where information from useable sources is coming from and what the big picture is, so that a more neutral picture that represents the appropriate balance that WEIGHT suggests when reviewing all usable sources, not just reliable sources. This requires understanding that right-leaning sources like Brietbart are acceptable for their opinion even if we are quick to dismiss facts from them, just as we'd accept opinions from left-leaning sources without question. In both cases, we should be careful to treat all opinions as suspect if they are dissenting views, per WP:YESPOV (too many times, statements from left-leaning sources if not labelled as an op-ed are taken as irrefutable facts even if they are contested by other sources, and YESPOV tells us we shouldn't make that assumption for contested statements). This is not to make a false balance, 50-50 on a controversial topic, but to make sure that the balance is reflecting the overall picture and all usable sources, not just what RS tells us to stick to for facts. Unfortunately, I've seen too many articles of late that want to keep to the "ivory tower" of only what the RSes say and not the larger picture, creating this implicit bias that only gets worse as the controversies continues with significant views coming from outside the block of RSes, exemplified by topics like Trump's campaign, feminism, and alt-right, to name a few. We need to be clear that RS is required to state anything as a fact in WP's voice, but a much larger body of sources can be used to include opinions that surround such controversies. -- MASEM ( t) 15:40, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, quick question. I wanted to use https://ballotpedia.org as a source for the Lane Powell page. This source was going to accompany lawyers from the firm who left to accept a Bench position. This source is going to be used to just give credibility that they worked at Lane Powell and are now a judge. I wanted to get your thoughts before posting. ( LPWik97203 ( talk) 17:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC))
Hylics was recently redirected because it supposedly was violating the copyright of a book published by AnVi OpenSource Knowledge Trust, which appears to be another one of those damn "publishers" that just collects our articles into a theme and prints them. Only this group is claiming that, despite being OpenSource (as in source code, as from the digital era) and discussing topics in ways that they somehow have a 1961 copyright.
I'm not really here to ask if sources from this company are unreliable -- they're outdated versions of our own articles at best -- I'm just here to point out that we appear to have a number of articles citing sources from this so-called "publisher."
My cat died today, it's late, and I've got errands to run in the morning, so I can't fix this right now. Ian.thomson ( talk) 13:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
As Wikipedia's article on The Daily Signal notes, the website is published by The Heritage Foundation, a US conservative website. That political bias aside, I would like to question how reliable this source is in relation to Russia-related articles, such as the conflict currently arising in the Azov Battalion article. This is the source in question:
Here is what the source is supporting, in context: ( diff)
Some [1] [2] members of the unit were described as " neo-Nazi" [3] [4] [5] [nb 1], an accusation that Ukrainian ministerial adviser, Anton Geraschenko has denied. [6] [7] [nb 2] [nb 3] A spokesman for the unit has said this label applies to 10-20% of its recruits, and one commander attributed this ideology to misguided youth. [1] As a result of being a multicultural and multinational unit, those with far-right convictions live and fight side-by-side soldiers from 22 countries and various backgrounds, including Arabs, Russians, and Americans—as well as Christians, Muslims, and Jews. [2]
References
Andriy Diachenko, a spokesman for the Azov Brigade, said only 10% to 20% of the group's members are Nazis.
Within the Azov Battalion, however, are a minority of soldiers with far-right, neo-Nazi persuasions. And those soldiers do little to hide their beliefs.
[The] members of Azov Battalion ... have been labeled patriots by some, neo-Nazis by others....
The Azov Battalion was formed and armed by Ukraine's interior ministry. A ministerial adviser, Anton Gerashchenko, [was asked] if the battalion had any neo-Nazi links through the Social National Assembly. 'The Social National Assembly is not a neo-Nazi organisation,' he said. 'It is a party of Ukrainian patriots...'
References
On the reliability of using The Daily Signal in this article: I brought this up on Kaobear's talk page here when I was first reverted for my edits, and no reply has been given, and explained on this user's talk page (as well as the article talk page) as to why I believe The Daily Signal is too biased to be used on such a contentious article as this one.
Just Googling "daily signal russia" shows that this source is especially antagonistic towards Russia, as well as looking at the Heritage Foundation's articles on Russia shows serious NPOV issues with the source, which I believe are too contentious to be used in the Azov Battalion article, or any articles discussing Russia, the Russia–Ukrainian conflict, etc. But I would like to hear from WP:RS/N on the actual reliability of the source. Liborbital ( talk) 23:52, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
... Russian and some Western media outlets, as well as several U.S. lawmakers, point to the symbol of the Azov Battalion, which closely resembles the Nazi Wolfsangel.
Battalion soldiers disagree. They say their symbol stands for “idea of the nation,” which refers to Ukrainian nationalism.
Can the editors here ascertain the reliability of this website? This website is being used across multiple U2 related articles, but what I can infer is this is essentially a fan disagreed, re-adding the content and saying that you had "double checked the sources" and that the matter had been discussed at the talk page (which it had not). If you had double-checked the sources (as you claim) then surely you believe it to be a reliable source, as otherwise you would not have added the material? I disagreed with that, so I brought it here. I fail to see what your issue here is. Liborbital ( talk) 15:55, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, it has been suggested to me by editor Coretheapple in the Discussion area of a current GA reassessment that the review be brought to the attention of a wider audience. The reassessment raises, in part, the questions of sourcing as the article relies on a single source for most of citations (160 in total). The source is:
This appears to be an obscure book published in Germany, and is both physically and linguistically inaccessible to the English language editors. Most of the claims/details are not supported by other sources, in contrast to Wikipedia's guidelines on "multiple RS sources".
Where other sources are used, the fall under WP:questionable sources, such as
For example, the military historian S.P. MacKenzie describes Williamson as a writer who attempts "to restore the tarnished reputation [of the Waffen-SS] and reiterate its superb fighting qualities" by relying on veterans' narratives, with "predictably positive results".
The latter is used for an WP:extraordinary claim of the subject's regiment destroying 270 tanks in 48 hours.
The article in question is Hyacinth Graf Strachwitz. I hope editors of this noticeboard would be interested in reviewing the article to see if it still meets Wikipedia:Good article criteria and whether it should be retained or delisted as a Good article. I would appreciate any feedback you could share. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:25, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
A little edit war has broken out on Panama Papers over the folllowing paragraph, which I have removed several times now:
"* Thousands of mentions of Donald Trump [1] [2]"
My own position is that the addictinginfo reference,
is not reliable or encyclopedic, and the Huffington Post merely mentions him in passing with the remark that his involvement is unproven and even unlikely. Telesur, eh, I don't speak spanish very well, but it appears to be a rather sensationalist tabloid.
Now, the name Trump strictly speaking does appear but he is known for branding other people's business deals and in this article the phrase we decided was most neutral was "appears in the papers" but every other person who is described as "mentioned" is either a client or possibly a nominee of Mossack Fonseca. There is no evidence that Trump goes overseas for his tax shelters or ever heard of Mossack Fonseca. None. Possibly maybe a business partner or some of the people who bought condos from him may have used shell companies. No evidence of Trump doing this. None.
Now, I am not fond of the man and it irks me that I have to point out that this mention, untrue as it appears to me to be, is possibly libelous, either because he chooses to take the mention to be a slur on his business abilities, or to imply that he is involved in some sort of tax fraud or other funny business. We have been at great pains in this article to repeat that yes, some people may have done some illegal things, in fact it seems certain that sanctions were skirted at a minimum, but having an offshore shell company is not illegal and may be nothing more than prudent financial management in certain cases.
See the following, which *is* a reliable source and one of the news organizations that participated in the investigation: http://www.mcclatchydc.com/news/nation-world/national/article74789322.html
I think the paragraph should, if we absolutely need to have Trump in there, be rewritten to reflect the more balanced MCClatchy account, and preferably stay deleted, since there seems to be no definite info. If we are going to say Donald Trump is involved we need a better source. That's what I think. What say you? Oh and here is a diff of the most recent time I removed it [ [13]] There are several others; nobody seems to wat to discuss this. They just revert the revert. Maybe some of you can explain this so it gets understood? Elinruby ( talk) 19:00, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Then
( talk) 21:37, 21 June 2016 (UTC) addictinginfo.com doesn't seem usable at all; as far as I can tell, it's just a personal website. On the other hand, while I'm not hugely familiar with TeleSUR, it seems broadly-usable, at least at first glance; it's a state-funded news station, but that doesn't matter as long as it has a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, which it seems to have. I don't see anything indicating that it's a 'sensationalist tabloid' or anything of that nature. -- Aquillion ( talk) 10:50, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, I was wondering if The Good Web Guide would be usable as a RS. What works mildly in their favor is that their about page shows that they're a little discerning. There are also a few reviews of their print books here and there. ( [14], [15]) This book has a bio of one of their authors, which looks pretty impressive - although I will note that this is only one of their authors. (The same author is mentioned in this review on JSTOR.) If they all have criteria like this it'd be a good sign. Their authors also seem to be quoted here and there, but not heavily. They're also listed as a source in some books.
However what works against them is that there really isn't a lot of coverage about them since they launched in 2001. They're mentioned here and there, but it seems to always be by people who won the award. The Daily Mail covered them, but that's not really the greatest site to use. They seem to be reliable overall, but I just don't know if they're Wikipedia reliable. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:58, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently participating in an AfD where they're trying to use this book review as a RS to show notability. Part of the issue with this AfD is that the book in question was used at one point to back up major changes to an article for a living person, Seasick Steve. Essentially the book claims that everything SS has told people is a lie manufactured to market himself more efficiently, thus claiming that the article itself is largely incorrect. (There was a bit of an edit war as well.) If this source is usable then it could potentially help argue for the book's inclusion in Wikipedia somewhere.
My question is whether or not LJN is usable as a RS. It's hosted on Blogger, which is never a particularly good sign for sourcing but I'm aware that there are some exceptions to the blog rule. The site offers advertising, but they specifically state that reviews are not part of the package. The site and their Twitter account claim that they've won the Jazz Media Award, and the Parliamentary Jazz Awards, however I'm not entirely aware if these are major enough to make the site a RS/authority. They do seem to get name dropped, which works in their favor ( [16], [17], [18], [19]) and I do see where they've been cited as a source in some books.
Offhand it looks like they might be usable, but given the situation I really want to make sure that they are. Offhand the author only looks to be notable for this one book and if this source is reliable then it'd give weight to the idea of including this somewhere in the performer's article. (Where and how it'd be mentioned is something to think about, possibly a subsection in the article?)
However I'm also concerned that the claims in the book are fairly contentious and that at present we only have five sources (including the blog) showing any sort of coverage for the book - the majority of which are sources written in the same 1-2 day period, many of which essentially say the same thing. Would this all be strong enough to justify a mention in the article? I know that's somewhat more of a BLP issue, but it also somewhat falls within the sphere of this noticeboard. Basically, would these five sources be considered heavy enough to warrant inclusion, given that the claims can easily be seen as very contentious. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:07, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
As it relates to the Milo article, Nblund has misrepresented the discussion and conflated it with the BLM discussion. Here's the language for THAT article that was proposed:
"Several news sources indicated some protesters threatened violence, with some reporting on actual physical acts of violence against Milo and another person videotaping the protest. They also included links to a video recording of one protester grabbing a microphone and possibly hitting Milo in the face. During the interruption, some protesters shouted "Black Lives Matter" while security guards stood passively aside at the request of administrators present."
More at issue, Nblund has been suppressing any mention of threats of violence, or actual violence that several sources and published video demonstrates.
Sources:
Nblund has conflated discussions and confused things. There's no indication that this was a BLM protest, but Black Lives Matter was certainly mentioned. More important, per WP:RS, we don't disqualify something just because it come from a rightist or leftist source. Given this is very relevant to Milo, there's no issue of weight here or Undue when it's part of his Bio. The Reason.com article is possible opinion (and can be highlighted that way with inline text), but the rest most certainly are not Mattnad ( talk) 16:08, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
There is a question as to whether Raman Kapur is a reliable source for the article Islamic terrorism. Kapur is a Director and Clinical Psychologist, Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland. Kapur is an expert in all types of terrorism and has published articles in anthologies on terrorism. He is also a regular contributor to the BBC. The particular article in question was published in an anthology called “Global Terrorism: Issues and Developments” published by “Nova Science Publishers” in 2008. His article is Chapter 4: [20] [21], see page 136. Our edit concerns the abuse of religious texts to justify hatred. [22]. Jason from nyc ( talk) 14:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I have been sent with the shortest expressions bearing the widest meanings, and I have I have been made victorious with terror, and while I was sleeping...
While I think a secular, academic source is preferable to professional, biased theologians on how are religious texts used to justify violence, there are two main issues that come to mind after reading the above conversation and the paragraph in question. First, the text of the paragraph seems to involve Synthesis of published material. The source used to support the existence of this specific hadith is the Sahih al-Bukhari (9th century) by author Muhammad al-Bukhari (d. 870). It is a primary source, and someone apparently picked a single hadith out of a collection which contains 2,602 independent hadith traditions and a few thousand repetitions of specific hadiths. Then the paragraph quotes Raman Kapur, who speaks about how Islamic terrorists "hijack" religious teachings to justify their own hatred. His quote may be reliable, but it is unclear whether it relates at all to this specific hadith or whether he is speaking about Islamic religious teachings in general. Frankly ,it seems like two unrelated texts were placed together to justify a Wikipedia editor's conclusion.
Second, Nblund seems to have confused the Quran with the hadiths. They are not nearly equivalent texts. Neither source was completed during the lifetime of Muhammad, who died in 632. The Quran is a 7th-century publication. Much of the text of the Quran was compiled based on the recollections of people who had heard Muhammad's oral teachings and memorized them. Among the scholars who were involved in the compilation of the book, the leading position is attributed to one Zayd ibn Thabit who died c. 660. Most sources place the compilation date of the book in the 650s and , with the exception of variations in transcription, the text has apparently received minimal changes ever since. It is the closest thing we have to a first-person account on Muhammad and his teachings.
Hadith stories and collections are later sources which attribute various "words, actions, or habits" to Muhammad. Most were written or compiled 2 or 3 centuries following the death of Muhammad. There are tens of thousands of individual hadiths, often mutually contradictory, compiled in many different collections. There are many theological disputes in Islam about which of these hadiths are accurate, and which are "false hadith" (equivalents to fabricated stories, literary forgeries, and apocrypha). There is even a minority of Muslims, the Quranists, which reject all of them and accept the Quran as the only authoritative source on Muhammad and his teachings. That a hadith exists does not mean that it is widely known, accepted, or even taken seriously.
Some of the theological ideas based on these hadiths are not exactly the stuff of legends, nor have any political significance. Consult the following Internet text which quotes specific hadiths from Al-Tirmidhi on whether it is theologically acceptable for a man to urinate standing up or sitting down, and what was the preferred practice by Muhammad himself. "...the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allaah be upon him) came to a garden belonging to some people, and urinated standing up." Dimadick ( talk) 08:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
This webpage from Angle fire is extensively used in Operation Opera. Can it be counted reliable? Mhhossein ( talk) 07:36, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Good luck finding sources. Despite this being a lengthy and detailed text, it does not cite any sources and apparently the authors consulted sources who wished to remain anonymous. The explanation note at the bottom of the article states: "This article could not have been written without the kind help of 'The First of the Last', whom the authors would like to thank for their extensive support and patience, supplied on condition of anonymity. We would also like to thank several other sources who provided help and material, also on condition of anonymity."
Also one of the main claims made in the article is that there was a secret, unofficial alliance and cooperation between Iran and Israel, but many of their own sources apparently disagreed. The article notes state "Interestingly, all the Israeli authorities and unofficial sources we contacted in connection with this article declared that any information about Iranian-Israeli co-operation was 'improbable' or 'inconceivable'. Several either stressed they had never heard of anything to this effect, or that it 'could not have happened' and that Iran and Israel had never worked together - or even helped each other - before, during, or after the war between Iraq and Iran."
According to our article on Iran–Israel relations, the two states "severed all diplomatic and commercial ties" between them back in 1979. They have also been fighting a proxy war since the 1990s, each of them funding operations against the other. That they are allies or former allies seems to be an extraordinary claim. Dimadick ( talk) 09:12, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
In an article about Voyager, Ian Grey wrote: "It was a rare heavy-hardware science fiction fantasy not built around a strong man, and more audaciously, it didn't seem to trouble itself over how fans would receive this. On Voyager, female authority was assumed and unquestioned; women conveyed sexual power without shame and anger without guilt. Even more so than Buffy, which debuted two years later, it was the most feminist show in American TV history." [1]
It is stating this as though it is fact which I think is misleading. A quick search on google for "the most feminist show in history" and you'll see similar type of statements being made about various shows. This seems to be a opinion and not fact. As far as I know there are no metrics/rankings of shows regards to "how feminist they are". The article also specifically mentions the author "Ian Grey". Ian Grey was not involved with the show at all so a reader reading the article and comes to the portion "Ian Grey wrote" and they'll think "who is this Ian Grey guy? Was he involved with the show?" then click on the reference to find out that he is just a random bloke who wrote his thoughts on the show. Offnfopt (talk) 11:56, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Comment To establish whether some creative works were feminist or not, consulting actual feminist sources would probably be needed. The article note about the author states "Ian Grey is a New York writer whose work on visual arts, music, and identity politics have been published by Press Play, Baltimore City Paper, Lacanian Ink, The Prague Post, The Perfect Sound, Salon, Gothic.net, Smart Money, Time Out New York, and other forums. A novel on trauma, sex work and sound is now being shopped." It does not mention whether Grey is affiliated to any feminist organization. The publisher of this article is " RogerEbert.com", a website devoted to "movie criticism, commentary and community", not to feminism. I could not find who currently owns the website, but it states that it was established in a partnership between the companies "Ebert Digital" and "Table XI". Ebert Digital was apparently operated by Roger Ebert (d. 2013), Chaz Ebert (Roger's wife), and Josh Golden (who?).
Like most sources written by film critics, Grey's article does contain some level of hyperbole and POV statements. It argues that:
I am not American and I am personally unfamiliar with most of these shows (they get broadcast in my country only by minor channels with subscription fees), but claims for the existence of a recent widespread turn towards male supremacy and anti-feminism should probably be taken with a grain of salt. Dimadick ( talk) 09:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
References
Is this source reliable enough to be used for the Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 article? - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 14:32, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
The Black Lives Matter entry contains this statement.
I suggested this instead:
Several sources say that one student, ( example1, example 2) Edward Ward, was affiliated with Black Lives Matter, but other organizations were also involved, and most mainstream sources don't mention BLM at all.
User James J. Lamben has cited two sources (the Washington Times, and Reason.com editor Robby Soave) that characterized these as Black Lives Matter protester(s) or characterized this as a BLM protest writ-large. Are the Washington Times or Robby Soave reliable sources for the statement that BLM activists (plural) were involved in the protest?
More generally: This has come up elsewhere, so are right-leaning outlets like the Washington Times, Breitbart, or Daily Caller reliable for factual, un-attributed statements of fact about left-wing protesters that are not covered elsewhere? Or should they be treated as opinion sources? Nblund ( talk) 20:35, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
we have a protest led by an outspoken BLM member, about BLM issues, where the protestors chant "Black Lives Matter"
Question for James J. Lambden {redacted}: WTF is a "BLM issue"? — MShabazz Talk/ Stalk 17:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Generally, where there is a better (more reputable, higher-quality, higher-circulation) source available to support the same or similar assertion—as appears to be the case here—we should cite to those better sources (New York Times, Washington Post, Reuters, Associated Press, academic articles, etc.), and not the WT. If the WT is the only source available, I would generally seriously question whether the fact is noteworthy enough to include. There are probably (rare) cases where it's OK. I would not rely on the WT in any case involving a contentious statement, an anonymous source, or a BLP.
This conversation is really getting off-topic and I think says more about the particular political preferences of some of the editors involved than about the potential biases in the sources. The actual topic should be whether The Washington Times meets the criteria for a Reliable source. Is it a third-party source or directly involved in the events or ideas described? Does it have a reputation for "fact-checking and accuracy"? To determine whether it meets such criteria, involved editors should provide some sources on the Times and its past handling of specific news items. Their personal opinions are neither reliable, nor easy to verify by other editors.
Also be weary of dated sources. One of the sources criticizing the Times, provided in a link above, is from 2009 and criticizes its affiliation with the controversial Unification Church. The ownership of the newspaper changed in 2010, and while it is probably still affiliated with the Church, its editorial policies may have changed. Dimadick ( talk) 06:10, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
A Huffington Post blog [25] by someone named Peter Reynosa is a major source for this BLP, eg his birthdate, his academic position and some of his work history.
This is also for these two sentences "When his paper came out in 1ate 1973, it was not attacked by other physicists or publicly rejected by the scientific community. It was just ignored. "Science just unnoticeably ignored him in a silent quietness of Indifference."[32] And there were several legitimate reasons why there were scientists who were very skeptical of his paper. Many thought it too speculative, lacking a good mathematical foundation, and also wrong in stating that if this kind of universe existed it would be made of equal parts matter and antimatter.[33] "
It's also used for "And the theory seemed to solve the horizon problem, the flatness problem, and the monopole problem that had plagued the Big Bang" (this is something about Alan Guth and the source may also be a reference for the preceding statements - the article is pretty badly written, eg 31 sentences begin with "And"). It may be relevant that most of the content was added by JanetTom55 ( talk · contribs) who today added excerpts from poems by this author to 6 articles. I can't find much about the author, there's his short bio at the HuffPost [26] and he's written some articles about us, eg [27]. Doug Weller talk 20:59, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Is
this YouTube video a reliable source for this statement, "Interestingly the 1992 version] did not have this Bible or creation in public schools reference at all and the claims regarding the various states of man (which did not have Lucy but is otherwise identical to the 2002 version) were credited to The Collapse of Evolution by Scott Huse which was being published by Chick publications at that time.
"? I gave my own opinion at
Talk:Chick tract#YouTube as a source, but another editor and I disagree and I've already been
unreverted once and don't want to get into an edit war.
—PermStrump
(talk) 21:28, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The Jack Chick Museum of Fine Art site is useful for old versions of the tracks...up to a point. The variations page you referenced above is just above useless:
"Big Daddy: Info on evolution has changed (evolved?) in several versions. Four different versions exist, plus the original version which says on page twenty, "Then He was an invader from outer space?" (Later versions replaced the question with, "Are you saying He is the Creator?") Also, the Spanish version has the student's hair black... until page 16 and the last panel when it goes white (from fear?) The current Chinese version still has the older hair styles from earlier variations."
Thankfully Big Daddy is one of those tracts that got a more in depth review then the one on the tracts page. The existing link to Terrible Tommy's review is broken but can be resolved via internet archive. And it give far more detail:
""Big Daddy" is one of Jack Chick's oldest tracts. Unlike many other old JTC tracts, "BD" has staying power. Why? Because it evolves! There have been four, count 'em, FOUR, incarnations of "Big Daddy," each leap forward occurring about 5-10 years after real advances in real science turn the older versions into tribble feces.
[...]
A number of "Anti-evolution facts" that were preached in the original BD have been discarded in favor of more modern twists. One such fact was the absolutely hilarious contention that scientists had produced a barrel of oil from ten pounds of garbage in less than an hour, thus proving that it did NOT take millennia to form oil deposits. As usual, the students in the background called out: "In less than an hour?" "Wow, we didn't evolve!" And also, as usual, there were absolutely no scientific references to any such experiment.
[...]
Another purely idiotic "proof" was the spotted moth in England. This was in the original BD. Basically, what happened was simple: In England, after the aerial pollutions from the Industrial Revolution had caused the trees to darken in color, a species of spotted moths were forced to turn dark themselves to avoid the birds that preyed on them. Chick has his Jew Prof declaring that this darkening "proves evolution.""
So an tract on the evils of evolution itself evolves. It would be funny if not so ironic.-- BruceGrubb ( talk) 22:00, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been asked before but I have checked every page I can think of and I can't find anything. What is the stance on eBooks as reliable sources? I'm not talking about self-published material. I'm talking about electronic versions of works that are professionally published that may or may not be available in traditional printed form. If they are considered reliable, how are they properly cited? They generally don't have page numbers, rather they have "location" numbers on the devices I have used and I don't know if those "locs" are consistent across devices or formats. Thanks. Mars Felix ( talk) 20:34, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I can't believe I'm having to ask this, but seeing as there seems to be a mass delusion in the professional wrestling WikiProject about our core policies: is this article from PWInsider a reliable source? I'm edging to "absolutely fucking not", given that the information in the source can't be verified against the apparent original source. Sceptre ( talk) 11:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I should point out at this point in 2009, the professional wrestling sites were still working on the assumption that the late October PPV was going to be an iteration of Cyber Sunday (when it ended up being the first Bragging Rights) and the late December PPV was an iteration of Armageddon (when it ended up being the first TLC). Ultimately, the schedule of WWE events and storylines are subject to change at any point, and this is an industry that is still incredibly insular. I don't see anything in the sources provided that would satisfy the WP:CRYSTAL policy – especially regarding arenas, which aren't even in the PWI source – and if any wrestling site apart from the promoter itself is asserting certainties about future events, I would be personally very wary. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, not a dirtsheet, and it is better to take it slow and get it right. Sceptre ( talk) 12:39, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if anyone had heard of Cambridge Scholars. I remember it being brought up in a prior AfD where the general thought was that it might be considered a reliable source since it was considered a "minor independent, low quality but not vanity press publisher" (per Piotrus at this AfD).
A look around the Internet isn't very promising. This forum has people reporting that the publisher doesn't seem to do any actual editing and that some of their products appear to be quite poorly put together. This Reddit thread says that they're not a vanity publisher, but they're also not really all that reputable either - they seem to rank them just above vanity publishing overall. They also seem to get some of their clients by approaching people right out of school.
It looks like they're not usable (my gut instinct), but I'd like some sort of consensus on this for the future. The impression I get is that they're not a vanity or scam publisher, but they're not that far off from one either. They appear to put most or all of the editing and formatting work on the author (from what I've read in some forums) and a reputable publisher would at least do the formatting work. I've repeatedly seen people claim that they were told to take their work elsewhere to get edited and there are whispers that if you don't take it to one of "their" editorial partners then they'll ask you for more editing, although that last part is only hinted at here and there. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:19, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, folks.
There is a discussion about whether Jezebel should be treated as a blog or an RS (and, therefore, whether it can be quoted on a BLP). Although it calls itself a blog, Jezebel articles come from a staff of professional writers (unlike an SPS) and has an editorial board (supplying the fact-checking):
The sentence in question is:
In the interests of disclosure, the BLP in question is about me ( James Cantor, not User:James Cantor). So, I am not participating in the discussion, other than to notify folks of this post.
— James Cantor ( talk) 13:05, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
{{
cite web}}
: Italic or bold markup not allowed in: |website=
(
help)
First - the article at issue is not a reliable source for claims of fact. It is not written as an article which anyone would suppose is usable for claims of fact. (Articles on that website with titles such as "10 Reasons Why Ryan Lochte Is America's Sexiest Douchebag" should make this sufficiently clear) Second - opinions may be used if cited and sourced as opinion, and the consensus agrees that the person holding the opinion is competent to have their opinion noted. The author dos not hold any degree indicating education in the field of sexuality. I suggest that the article at issue is not a valid reliable source for use in a WP:BLP. Note: the issue of "blog" does not even need to arise in this discussion, it is an opinion column written by a person not known in the relevant field for his opinions. Collect ( talk) 20:45, 1 July 2016 (UTC)
Is First Monday (journal) a legitimate peer-reviewed reliable source? I looked, but could not find any evidence of any article going through any sort of peer review. No published reviews, no names of reviewers -- in fact I can't really find any sources mentioning the First Monday journal other than the First Monday journal itself. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball does not directly apply here. It does not prevent us from having articles on future or predicted events. The policy states: "A schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified. As an exception, even highly speculative articles about events that may or may not occur far in the future might be appropriate, where coverage in reliable sources is sufficient. For example, Ultimate fate of the universe is an acceptable topic." and "Of course, we do and should have articles about notable artistic works, essays, or credible research that embody predictions. An article on Weapons of Star Trek is appropriate; an article on "Weapons to be used in World War III" is not."
The main issue here is not the prediction or speculation itself, it is that the source of it may be neither reliable nor notable to begin with. Based on the small number of available sources on it, First Monday (journal) seems to be generally ignored. By the way, I am quite surprised we have an article on it. We have deleted articles with better coverage and evidence of notability. Dimadick ( talk) 06:58, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Is this a reliable source? http://www.genocide-museum.am/eng/cultural_genocide.php From the wikipedia page; https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armenian_cultural_heritage_in_Turkey
It claims to speak in the name of "Unecso" and that many churches in Turkey were destroyed. However on the official Unesco it's never shown to be such kind of statement or claim.
A 1974 survey identified 913 remaining churches and monastic sites in Turkey in various conditions. At half of these sites the buildings had vanished utterly. Of the remainder, 252 were ruined. Just 197 survived in anything like a usable state.
Opinions are needed on the following matter: Talk:Eidetic memory#WP:RfC: Should the article be strict in stating that photographic memory and eidetic memory are not the same thing?. A WP:Permalink is here. One issue is a Slate source vs. what some reliable book sources state. And the other is what to relay based on what all these sources say. Flyer22 Reborn ( talk) 19:33, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
While The Guardian did indeed put We do this because Germany's right to exist is now a question of to be or not to be in quotation marks, it appears to be an original paraphrase that no one before The Guardian and no one since Wikipedia has attributed to the Nazi government. Can someone familiar with the topic check this? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:22, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Korean gaming website, looking for Korean speakers to help out. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
I came across this website being used as a source on Robert Black (serial killer), which is a WP:BDP. It seems to be a voluntary organisation and I suspect therefore that it is not a very strong source. Opinions on this are sought by those with experience in this area. There is a wider discussion on sourcing at the article's talk page that could do with some input too. -- John ( talk) 12:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
I wonder if I can get a volunteer to look at Baloch Students Organization and evaluate it for RS issues? Balochistan is under heavy press censorship. So, not a lot of news comes out through mainstream news sources. I have had to use some liberal/rights groups sources, sometimes using multiple ones for corroboration. A review of the article with a critical eye to the sources would be helpful. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:08, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is the right place to discuss whether or not to include a review, but it is worth a shot. :) In Best Horror Movies reviews can either be written by staff, or they can be reader submitted. Reader submitted reviews do not undergo any vetting, but occasionally a reader review is selected to go on to the main site. In this case the reviewer was Christopher DuValle, who I can't find any other reviews by. The review was reader submitted, not by staff, he does not appear to be an expert, and the review was not included in the main list of reviews on the site. Should we be using this review? - Bilby ( talk) 04:26, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
There are a handful of references to the use of Wikinvest as a source which I've found:
Bringing this up as I've noted citations to Wikinvest in BioMarin Pharmaceutical which I'm considering replacing or expanding from the current bare URLs. Wanted to get a firmer notion from the community about the reliability and suitability as a source of Wikinvest. Note that at the bottom of a typical page (e.g. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/BioMarin_Pharmaceutical_(BMRN)/Data/Income_Statement ), there is a "Data Sources" statement. Inspecting the site, it appears that the data-oriented pages do not have accessible page history information, but other pages (e.g. http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/BioMarin_Pharmaceutical_(BMRN) ) do have history information available and links to author profiles which appear to show real names in cases I've reviewed. Looking at the 'about' page ( http://www.wikinvest.com/site/About_Wikinvest) does not refer to editorial policies. To be fair, neither does Google Finance; however, in the Google case there is an decent disclaimer statement which pretty much says "don't use this unless you don't care about accuracy".
Thanks for your input. --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 02:30, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
I can't see this commercial being a reliable source. [44] It's a blog entry for a company that sells a product called a War Lock. It was being used a staggering 56 times [45] as a source in the article on the AR-15. Aside from Frontier Tactical not appearing to have any editorial oversight, the blog post is simply to sell the War Lock. Every mention of every round talks about how it relates to the War Lock product. Some of those entries even admit that they haven't tried it, but he parts should work. I probably wouldn't even notice if it were a one off source for some obscure caliber, but 56 times? Does anyone see this passing RS? Niteshift36 ( talk) 15:27, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
6.5 WOA: This cartridge has not been tested with the War Lock™. We have not found enough currently available components to support the common use of this cartridge through the AR-15 platform. Use of this caliber would likely require significant effort and education for the enthusiast wanting this option.
Back in 2008 I asked about two sources useful in science fiction and fantasy bibliography. I got no answer back then and am hoping for one now.
The first is the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, usually shortened to ISFDB. This is crowdsourced, but it has editorial oversight; essentially every edit has to be approved by an administrator. The site contains bibliographic data drawn from direct examination of books and also from secondary sources. Where a copy of the book is used, that is noted as a "primary verification" meaning that the primary source was used to verify that data. Subsequent edits that modify any data that has been "primary verified" are held up by the admins to determine what the discrepancy is. Other reliable sources treat the ISFDB as reliable; for example, the online SF Encyclopedia, (SFE) probably the most authoritative encyclopedic source for science fiction, says "The more specialist Internet Speculative Fiction Database is incomparable for its cataloguing of books and stories published". The SFE includes thousands of links to the ISFDB in its articles.
I propose that the ISFDB be regarded as a reliable source for information which is marked as having been primary verified. For this to be abused, someone would have to modify the bibliographic data on something which has not already been primary verified (and most editions have), and then do the primary verification. Even this would not work if, as I know from experience is likely, the admins at the ISFDB prevented the bogus edits from going through. If the online SFE treats it as reliable, we should too.
The second is Galactic Central, which is run by Phil Stephensen-Payne, a bibliographer. It contains an enormous number of magazines checklists, along with additional details. Again, the SFE regards this is as reliable and links to it many times. I can say from personal experience with both resources that they are remarkably accurate.
The article I'd like to use these resources for is Weird Tales, which I'd like to bring to featured status. The specific data I would like to source from these two resources is:
-- Mike Christie ( talk - contribs - library) 20:45, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
A specific editor has been adding links to www.worldofstadiums.com to support facts about stadiums. I don't think it meets the criteria for RS as it does not list who the editors are, whether there is any oversight of the information. If it's found that this site is not a reliable source I would like to suggest that it be placed on a blacklist, such as the spam blacklist, so that it cannot be added, and a bot be commissioned to remove all existing links to the site. At the very least, could someone please indicate how I could find the links so I can remove them manually? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 16:26, 2 July 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering what you guys thought of this publisher. I'm compiling sources for an upcoming article and this one popped up for a book that's part history, part cookbook, with a large emphasis on history since there are essays about various historical locations in Virginia that precede any recipe(s). The publisher in question is John F. Blair, Publisher and the pedigree of its founder looks to be pretty good - the guy worked for a number of academic publishers before opening his own publisher. I was initially going to dismiss it but it looks like they've been running since the 1950s and I've seen their work published in various chain and academic bookstores, primarily those in the South since the publisher is southern based. The Library of Virginia has copies of their work, FWIW, and they're relatively selective about what they include, as is the University of Richmond. Tokyogirl79LVA ( talk) 12:47, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello. In the following text, (meant for the article pegging (sexual practice)), are the sources included considered reliable to support the corresponding content?.
Advice columnist Dan Savage wrote that he believes all men should try pegging at least once, as it may introduce them to a new enjoyable sexual activity and illuminate them to the receiver's perspective in sex. [1] According to the advocate of pegging Ruby Ryder, females can enjoy the experience of being active in pleasing their partner, reversing the typical roles, the strong intimacy implied in the exposed vulnerability, and the breaking of taboos. [2] [3]
Thanks in advance. Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 17:38, 9 July 2016 (UTC).
References
Please note that neither Ryder nor Savage are scientists. Talking a lot about a topic doesn't makes a man a scientist. Probably neither of them know what cyclic guanosine monophosphate is, let alone what is its relation to sex (they would know if they know about the basics of the pharmacology of sex because this compound is related to the mechanism of action of Viagra (sildenafil)). As far as I know, neither of them has published any book or paper that meets WP:MEDRS, the only difference is that Savage is famous while Ryder is lesser known. This isn't the the article about Savage, so his opinion is not especially relevant (note that his participation in the origin of the term “pegging” is described elsewhere in the article). Note also that Ruby Ryder has spoken about pegging in conferences, so her work isn't only self-published.
I am not especially interested in stating Ruby Ryder's viewpoint in pegging (sexual practice) but I am interested in describing the psychologically pleasurable aspect of pegging.
The reason that I added Ruby Ryder as a source is that originally a similar paragraph was added by a now uninvolved editor ( Special:Diff/728202306). I added Ruby Ryder as a source after an user removed the paragraph for being unsourced. Finally I again modified it to the current version attributing in-text the statement to Ruby Ryder to make it comply with WP:V per the "self-published sources are reliable about their own statements" (my paraphrasing).
So, if we do not use Ruby Ryder as a source, what would we use about this aspect of pegging?. We do not have any source that complies literally with Wikipedia's standards, as this is within the scope of the medicine of sexuality, therefore the relevant policy is WP:MEDRS. I searched the medical literature, and there is nothing written specifically about pegging (I elaborated about my findings of the literature in the talk page).
Regards.
Mario Castelán Castro ( talk) 03:04, 11 July 2016 (UTC).
I don't think WP:MEDRS would really apply to the statements above. If it were applied, neither Savage nor Ryder would be remotely acceptable. I agree with the other editors here: Savage and Ryder could be reliable sources for statements of opinion, but Savage's opinion is notable and Ryder's really isn't, so citing that blog is not really consistent with WP:DUE. I'm sure with a little digging, something more authoritative could be found. Nblund talk 18:50, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
These outlets have a history of outrageous stories like this and this. A user advised another editor to post here in relation to this being used as a source for SAS involvement in the recent Battle of Fallujah, so I figured I'd beat them to it. Note how these outlets cite other tabloid outlets making the same unverified claims. This is a constant in these sources' coverage of the war against ISIS. Tabloid sources using anonymous/unclear sources and/or citing each other, detailing the utterly secret operations of elite special forces in a warzone. This reeks of war propaganda. Eik Corell ( talk) 09:51, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Factual claims (not the "headline claims") seem in order for those sources. The only area where the tabloids named really fail is in "celebrity gossip" where I do not trust even the New York Times. If you avoid the "headlines" you will find the actual stories are compliant with other sources, as a rule. Collect ( talk) 23:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, can you please tell me why Soccerway is called reliable and StadiumDB and World of Stadiums are probably not? I don't understand the criteria I guess. Kind regards, Farmnation
I want to use this link for some information in The Red Tour but I am hesitant. Is insing.com a reliable source for a GA or not??? Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 04:14, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
And also: myxph.com TAYLOR SWIFT Paints Manila RED! Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 11:51, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
There is currently a request for comment on an issue involving reliable sources and original research at Talk:Aptronym#Original research and lack of sources. Sundayclose ( talk) 21:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)