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 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 | Archive 211 | Archive 212 | → | Archive 215 |
In an article about Company A can information about a deal with Company B be sourced from Company B's press release? Is such a press release sufficiently independent from Company A? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to check if http://www.pickdup.com/pokemon-go-stats.html is a reliable source for sharing latest stats on Pokemon Go. I also wanted to check if Pickdup.com/stats is a reliable source according to wikipedia standards for sharing and citing factual data. Their editorial policy is mentioned http://www.pickdup.com/editorial-policy.html. I was confused if I should be using their website as reference. your help will be extremely valuable.
Rahyl Yadav ( talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
An unattributed quote from Maurice Chatelaine, an engineer who wrote OurAncestors Came From Outer Space, A NASA Expert Confirms Mankind's Extraterrestrial Origins, is being used in this article. [1] (evidently I'm ignorant for thinking a fringe book by an engineer who was a NASA subcontractor isn't a reliable source). I reverted but it was replaced. With the reversion and personal attack I won't AGF anymore and probably the rest of the edits need checking as well. Doug Weller, 08:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The insistence that it is a "fringe" book, when it is not, and it is in fact a very reliable source.
This book should not be considered "fringe" as it has now been proven by multiple sources, researchers, scientist, archeologist, historians via factual cuneiform tablets that we in fact did have other being visitation from outside of Earth (not necessarily outside of our solar system) with clear documentation of what was done, how it was done, and why it was done.This passage, right here, is a highly problematic statement for a wiki editor. To be concise: Not only are you wrong, but you are so very wrong that even when Hollywood chooses to portray your assertions as accurate in a science fiction film they make a point of lampshading exactly how ridiculous such beliefs are. Allow me to state that another way:
It's rather odd that having the genius to develop interspacial travel, they arrived to develop one of the clumsiest systems of writing imaginableAhh, but you forget that they taught us agriculture and how to construct large monuments. And the techniques we had there were... Hmmm... Also quite primitive and regressive. Almost as if we were figuring out writing, agriculture and large scale building on our own. But still, that doesn't rule out involvement from aliens! It just kinda says some things about those aliens. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it is appropriate or not to post this here, but is anybody of you connected to Oricon's Sales Website. If yes, could you provide me a prose about the album's chart run and sales? Ping me when something my appear. Best, Cartoon network freak ( talk) 03:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
1. http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/37949/Shadow-Of-The-Colossus-Shadow-of-the-Colossus/ 2. /info/en/?search=Shadow_of_the_Colossus#Deathcore_band 3. The article for this video game, "Shadow of the Colossus," includes this under the section "Further Adaptations":
Deathcore band[edit] There is a deathcore band named Shadow of the Colossus. Many of the band's lyrics and album art are inspired by the video game.[105]
I am uncertain whether this band is notable enough to be included in this article. The citation for this contribution is a review from Sputnikmusic, which is site primarily driven by user submissions, however, this specific citation is to a review by Sputnikmusic Staff. The only other sources I've found on this band are more user-driven sites, such as Facebook, last.fm, and Metal-Archives. Outside of this niche/scene of heavy metal music, this band does not seem notable, and this contribution seems more like a short little promotional snippet for an indie band.
Looking to discuss this further. Thanks. Kevinjaems ( talk) 17:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Nicrorus, Second Skin, Steel, and Masem: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinjaems ( talk • contribs)
The source and the article have been a subject of a prior discussion here at RSN: Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII). The article has been nominated for a good article reassessment (GAR), and additional eyes would be welcome:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please point me to prior decisions regarding the use of a CV as a RS or acceptable source in a BLP, please? Atsme 📞 📧 14:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, perhaps you can help me understand something I find a bit confusing. It may be causing me to give academia too much credit. I was inclined to think that a CV or article or most anything else published on a university website which is managed and overseen by the university would be considered a form of "peer reviewed academic publication". With that in mind, I looked to WP:RS which states: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Your thoughts? Atsme 📞 📧 04:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to point out that in the case of a CV published on a University's web page, they probably used the same document -- or its predecessor -- in their vetting of the applicant -- to hire the person! So, presumably, the university believed the person wasn't lying on their CV/resume! People do, but that's a different issue -- and one that gets people fired. So even if the U doesn't edit or vet the CV, they just say, "send it to IT..." there is a presumption of verifiability that one wouldn't get, say, if they published their CV on their own blog... Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I am uncertain as to whether this article on the website Free Thought Project is a reliable source for the content in Shooting of Alton Sterling it is being used to support (it's currently reference 10 in that article). Given that we don't have an article on Free Thought Project, I suspect the answer to the reliability question is no. Everymorning (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
First of all, not the book. My question is if the website Odyssey is, in general, a reliable source. I don't have a specific article in mind. The website, which I fully admit I have a conflict of interest with (I'm a Content Creator for them.), has articles mainly published by thousands of college students. They do, as can be discerned from their job application page, have a structured system including a Content Creator. After the Content Creator, well, creates, the written piece then goes to the Editor in Chief (also a student) and then to the Managing Editor, who is not a student, but works at the corporate offices of Odyssey. The EiC's and content creators are broken up by college campus, as can also be seen on the job application page. The MEs manage several campuses at once. While a lot part of the content is GIF-centric, a lot of it is also well-written opinion pieces or well-sourced news stories, both of which can be either local or national. There is not currently any Wikipedia article about Odyssey, though there used to be one, The Odyssey Newspaper, which I marked for and got speedy deletion (G11). I do not plan to create another article about them at this point in time. I merely want to know if, in general, they are a reliable source. -- Gestrid ( talk) 06:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
In an article about Frances Cress Welsing a dispute concerning the reliability of encyclopedia.com (specifically this article) has arisen. More specifically K.e.coffman has expessed doubt about its reliability. Since no consensus seems to be forthcoming, I am hereby soliciting third party opinions in the hope of achieving a clear consensus. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 08:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
In general, is the source reliable?
Specifically, celebsmemoir.com/adam-gontier-height-weight-body-statistics-and-net-worth/ was added a source for birth dates. I don't see any authors. I don't see an "about" page to explain if there's oversight. I would argue not reliable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
See Steven Emerson#Investigative Project on Terrorism. Is this an RS for anything other than itself, and in particular for the BLPs using it? This is basically a one-man show by Steven Emerson, who wrote that "“In Britain, it’s not just no-go zones,” Emerson said. “There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.” [2] which made a number of people wonder about how thorough his research was, to say the least. See also this SPLC article [3] and Loonwatch. [4] Doug Weller talk 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Would the website
sharkattackfile
Is currently in the Chrysler article. Alas, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is not only a tertiary source, it does not make the claims ascribed to it! In fact, almost all of this section is unsupported OR, including the $2 billion claim or anything else. Nor does the NPR "timeline" remotely support anything more than "1979: CEO Lee Iacocca initiates a government bailout of the nearly bankrupt Chrysler Corp. 1980: Congress passes and President Jimmy Carter signs a loan guarantee act for Chrysler, in which the government essentially acts as a co-signer of a $1.5 billion loan for the company. During the next few years, Chrysler reports record profits. 1983: Chrysler pays off its federally guaranteed loans seven years early. The company introduces minivans, creating a new market niche with the Plymouth Voyager and Dodge Caravan." which is not what is claimed in the Chrysler Wikipedia article.
Would non-involved folks please note the clear verification problems with these claims, which, I fear, are the tip of the iceberg on this article? Collect ( talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a slightly stretching the remit of this board since it's a question of independence rather than reliability, but this's the closest we've got. The question is:
The Deseret News is a notable and reliable source for the purposes of using it as a cite ref in an article, generally -- I think most people would probably agree with with that. They're a large and long-established general-audience world-and-local-news newspaper with a large circulation, a mainstream point of view, and, I'd assume, an active fact-checking arm.
That doesn't mean they are independent of the Mormom Church for the purposes of establishing whether a subject covered by them is notable enough to have an article (that's where the "independent of the subject" clause of WP:GNG comes in).
The paper is owned by the Mormon Church. While their editorial side appears to be pretty much like any other general-audience paper, I don't know if they would investigate wrongdoing in the Mormon Church with any vigor. Probably not.
And they do print Mormon Church news to a much greater degree than, say, the Boston Globe or whatever. On the other hand, they are based in Salt Lake City, where the doings of the Mormon Church are important regardless. If they didn't cover the church much it would be odd, and not good business.
So I dunno. My inclination is to read the "independent of the subject" clause fairly narrowly and the Deseret News would be outside that clause. It's a newspaper, the ownership is peripheral to what it is. Similarly as the Christian Science Monitor is independent of the Christian Science Church for WP:GNG purposes IMO.
Contrast with the magazine Ensign which is also owned by the Mormons, but is 1) mainly directed to Mormons, and 2) mainly has articles about Mormons, the Mormon Church, and so forth. It's a house organ, basically. The Deseret News isn't.
But I don't know. I don't read the Deseret News and I'm not really familiar with it. Maybe I have wrong idea about the paper. Anybody have an idea? Herostratus ( talk) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Lavrense thinks that a book without an ISBN (SILVA, Paulo Napoleão Nogueira da (1994) (in Portuguese). Monarquia: verdades e mentiras. São Paulo: GRD.) is an unreliable source. [7] I think it is a reliable source. Please comment at Talk:Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne#ISBNs. Thanks. DrKay ( talk) 06:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to use some information from this link Taylor Swift Concert Review but I don't know it is a reliable source or not although Our Wiki have a article about this online magazine. Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 06:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't seem to be getting an answer to this and I've searched the archives for one but found nothing. A lot of artists have an Instagram profile and most have been "verified" with a badge to show that the account legitimately belongs to the artist. These badges can be found beside their name. The issue I'm running into with this is that there's a lack of sources for rising artists that haven't become known enough yet. In my case I have been collecting sources for Nikki Yanofsky. However she makes a lot of posts on her verified Instagram account that contain information about her upcoming songs and albums but I'm not sure if those posts can be used in citations. For example, there's a lot of hype going around the fandom about her upcoming album called "Solid Gold" and yesterday she released a single off the album called "Young Love." This is HUGE news considering that no one has been able to hear any new music from her for more than a couple years now. But it's just barely making it on her Wikipedia articles, both for the album and the single. I and a few other editors added Instagram citations linking to the posts that include the correct info, but they're all being taken down with the summary saying that Instagram can't be used. It had the date, time, name, and site all in it with a direct quote from Nikki Yanofsky herself.
Wikipedia Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/4
"Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, including newsletters, personal websites, books, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets, are usually not acceptable as sources. The general exception is where the author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic; in this case, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that topic (but not other topics). Even then, third-party publications are still preferable."
I'd argue that Nikki Yanofsky is an expert on the topic of Nikki Yanofsky.
Instagram Profile: https://www.instagram.com/officialnikki_y/ (Subject to change.)
Me00lmeals ( talk) 07:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether festivalgenius.com is considered RS? I believe that the content is added with oversight from the actual festivals, but am not 100% sure. Can anyone familiar with the website confirm? -- Jpcase ( talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Is an article written by Eric Markowitz [10] and published by Newsweek magazine a reliable source for this assertion?
This is for the SIG MCX article. Felsic2 ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The above source has been challenged as unreliable for the attributed view removed here. Is Gilbert Achcar writing in a book published by Henry Holt and Company a reliable source? Seems absurd even asking this, but seeking outside opinions on the quality of that source for that material. nableezy - 00:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I am the one who challenged the source, but only because it is more of a suggestion. Another editor has called it euphemistically a rhetorical question. The expert is a know academic, but the statement that is used as a sourced sounds like a sentence from an op-ed opinion piece. Debresser ( talk) 16:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The above is used in Charlotte Laws, specifically as the first reference in Charlotte Laws#Party crashing expert. It's used to support the claim that Laws is listed as the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world, beating Queen Elizabeth, Bill Murray, Lady Gaga and Serena Williams. The claim that a head of state is a "party crasher" sounds odd. Is this a reliable source? Autarch ( talk) 17:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Possibly relevant quote from their T&C:
TheRichest is an entertainment based website providing commentary, general information in relation to celebrities, luxury items, athletes, businesspersons, public figures, lifestyles, wealthy individuals, current trends and entertainment. Information on the site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Website does not make any warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the sites content. The Website does not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy of the information. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors.
So they're certainly not standing behind their clickbait listicles. Trivialist ( talk) 01:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been coming across a few references that use information from http://www.startrek.com, and I am a bit concerned that there doesn't appear to be any editorial overview whatsoever on this site. There isn't any indication that this is being written by anyone but 2-3 fans with a lot of trek knowledge and absolutely no sourcing of statements. I know that fan sites are a slippery slop into OR (vigilance is an utter pain in the ass when it comes to series like Doctor Who and Game of Thrones), so I thought it best to help define what sorts of sites we are going to allow citing from. I didn't see from an archive search that this site has come up before, so thoughts on the matter would be helpful. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 03:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello all. I am posting to this noticeboard in the hopes that a resolution can be come to with more input from impartial editors who are experienced in dealing with the concept of reliable sources. On Sino-Vietnamese War, a dispute has been ongoing for several days now regarding the outcome of the conflict in the infobox. The article initially stated that "both sides claimed victory"; recently User:Spartacus! changed this to suggest that the conflict was instead a Vietnamese victory. A series of discussions followed, with User:Jon Hydro Jets and User:Rajmaan arguing against the change. I noticed this dispute after Jon Hydro Jets, editing under his IP, contacted a couple of admins accusing Spartacus! of vandalism and requesting blocks. User:NeilN denied the request and reminded Jon Hydro Jets to assume good faith and not accuse others of vandalism, an opinion I share, in light of the rather aggressive approach Jon Hydro Jets and Rajmaan have taken (that issue may be better addressed elsewhere).
After attempting to mediate the conflict as an uninvolved third party, my personal assessment is that the discussion has reached an impasse and no progress is going to made as none of the parties seem willing to budge. In summary, here are the arguments, and sources used:
It looked to me like both sides agreed with my suggestion, but then a continuation of the debate regarding reliability of sources brought forth by Spartacus continued immediately after, so I think at this point, the discussion would really benefit from further impartial opinions (beyond the IP who offered to be another uninvolved mediator, considering their fairly opinionated stance on the issue, as well as lack of edits and apparent copying of my first line when I first commented on the discussion).
A reminder to involved users, if you are commenting on this, to keep your tone civil. Continued personal attacks on people just because they have different opinions from you will probably not be appreciated by the people who are attempting to help resolve this dispute here. If I've missed or mis-represented your ideas, just present your reasons, sources, and refute the sources; there is no need to make comments about other editors' abilities to use and interpret sources. Bramble claw x 14:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion by involved editors
|
---|
Him, Brambleclawx. Spartacus did budge on the outcome of the war. He already agreed with your conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to change the article. The argument is now between Spartacus and Rajmaan on weather Spartacus' other sources are reliable. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 15:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No you did not! You clearly agreed with Brambleclawx's conclusion. Brambleclawx's original quote: "That said, after reviewing the sources, I would tend to say that a conclusion that "both sides claim victory" is more appropriate. This is not, however, because I think one source is trumping another due to being cited, or because I think anyone is acting in bad faith. I have an entirely different reasoning, which I hope both of you will consider. Perhaps the most important source to my conclusion is one brought up by Spartacus: Blinders, Blunders, and Wars. The key idea expressed here, is that in the past, scholars viewed the result to be a Chinese failure, but that more recently, scholars are interpreting it more favourably for the Chinese (i.e., not a complete failure after all). I believe the best way to move forward here, is to actually present this idea in the page itself, perhaps in the Aftermath section. It seems that nowadays, the prevalent view is that the results were not quite a failure for either side, but it would make for a much more balanced and informative article to actually discuss how that interpretation has changed over time. If anything, because you've all brought up so many sources, there is easily enough material now to present a section discussing how this view has changed, with good references to both the previous school of thought, and more recent changes in interpretation. I think this solution works well as a compromise: neither idea is completely shut out, and the article gets to be more balanced and detailed." Spartacus clearly said: "What Brambleclawx said I agree with them."
/info/en/?search=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_War#Source_dicussion_regarding_outcome_of_Sino-Vietnamese_War The 6-7 sources you provided: One is an internet source quoting directly from Wikipedia.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october242010/vietnam-china-tk.php One is a book about economy without any information regarding the war, only a blurry picture.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RrKYBgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s One is a book about culture and strategy.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_CaeHdWv2YQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Chinese+Strategic+Culture+and+Foreign+Policy+Decision-Making:+Confucianism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpvuLk_ZPOAhVi34MKHUdHBxoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false One is a book about foreign policy.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=q13fAAAAMAAJ&q=defending+china&dq=defending+china&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq_YPT-5POAhVM2oMKHVIsDvUQ6AEIHTAA One is a book discussing blunders and blinders and wars. This is a source where Brambleclawx drew his conclusion. You however, did not even read your own source, instead you quoted from the book. The book is actually concluding the war in China's favor as it was pointed out by Brambleclawx.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=5TThBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Blinders,+Blunders,+and+Wars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP5JWY_JPOAhUC2IMKHbJ0BdUQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Blinders%2C%20Blunders%2C%20and%20Wars&f=false One is a book summarizing military history, which it used my source as its foundation and it falsely stated that China was "defeated", in reality, the source stated that: "both sides claimed victory."
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military#v=onepage&q&f=false You used the source: Military History to support your claim. However, your source lied about the outcome of the war. Most important of all, your source used my source as its foundation. You source stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War written by CHEN (1987)." Your source stated that my source: Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979: A military Analysis written by King C. CHEN is the best source and you agreed with it because you used this source !! However, my source clearly stated that: ""In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." On page 32 under evaluation section. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_War&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_War&diff=731795849&oldid=731790442 -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 15:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Brambleclawx is that person. He is the non-involved editor! Most important of all, you Spartacus agreed with his conclusion, that: "Both Sides Claimed Victory" is the more appropriate outcome. You wrote them down in black and white, now you and Rajmaan are battling over your first source's credibility ! At last, you can not remove other people's comment in the talk section! Remember what you Spartacus has been telling everyone ?? You are literally flip flopping, on one hand you are complaining that other people suppressing your views by debunking your bad sources. On the other hand, you remove other people's comments without any justifications and keep getting caught at it ! -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
-- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 16:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Discussion by involved editors
|
---|
Hello, I have found a great source for the result of the war. This source is solely dedicated to the war. It had over 200 pages of content discussing the objectives, strategies and outcomes of the war. This source fully qualifies as a Wikipedia reliable source and is far more credible than the source previous editors used which is an economic article and merely mentioning the war in a paragraph. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas This source clearly stated that both sides claimed victory. On page 32 "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed victory. No one had achieved its major objectives." This source is dedicated to the Sino-Vietnamese war, not some article regarding economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 12:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
-- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
First, I am not a sockpuppet. I am just using internet at two different locations. I do not have two different registered account. The source I provided is more reliable than Spartacus'. His source has nothing to do with Sino-Vietnamese war and Sino-Soviet border conflict. It is an economy related article and thus not credible ! The source I provided are all dedicated war articles. The results were clearly stated and the war was thoroughly discussed ! -- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sources don't become unreliable because you say so? [14] it meets the standards listed at wp:rs. the source has dedicated a full table with heading "Wars and armed conflicts in asia, 1946-2000", and further cites RS "Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999)" . Spartacus! ( talk) 13:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
No where in your source described any details, objectives, strategy and outcome of any conflicts !! The sources I provided: 1. https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0022974.A2.pdf 2. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas These sources are 100% reliable and satisfy every Wikipedia requirement as a reliable source. They were both over 200 pages long and described each war in absolute details, they are fully dedicated to each war not some economic article you privided!! They both stated the result of the war !! In short you failed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC) -- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) You looked at the source and you found it blurry? then buy it and read it at your home! This is not the excuse, It is clearly written Victorious - Vietnam : Defeated - China. The sources has failry represented wars and armed conflicts in Asia since 1946-2000, they have cited further sources from where they've taken the stats. And now about the sources you presented. The first source doesn't say what you're trying to say to us "both sides were victor". Your second source (as you said page no.32) In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed a victory over the other,107 No one had achieved its major objectives. While 107 says "China claims have been repeatedly cited above"! This is your source? stop this bs nonsense. Spartacus! ( talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Your source is an economy article which does NOT qualify for a war article. Your source with a merely one page blurry picture does not even qualify for war article. If your reason is sound then anyone can write a book and place a picture in it and gain credibility. My sources are both fully dedicated to war articles. The results were clearly stated. Both sides claimed victory because neither side fully achieved their goals but manage to achieve certain goals. For China:
1. China showed the world that USSR at that time could not protect its new ally Vietnam which ended a possible two front war scenario for China. ( This is one of the major goals for China, this was clearly written in the article and thoroughly discussed. Your source did not mention any strategic values, reason for war, the course of the war what so ever, just a blurry picture that no one can even read !) For Vietnam:
1. China did not force Vietnam's withdraw from Cambodia.
What kind of agreement do you want to reach? We can settle a consensus agreement and stop this editing chaos together. Thank you. -- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 15:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As I have shown above, his source shows a merely picture and it is blurry !! To make matter even worse, his source was solely related to economic issue. My source is dedicated to wars. Could you please keep an eye on this page, I know that Spartacus will be back messing with it again. As for you Spartacus, please stop now. -- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 19:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Spartacus you added more useless sources.
This source quotes from Wikipedia itself !! " According to Wikipedia: Within a single day, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advanced some eight kilometers into Vietnam along a broad front. It then slowed and nearly stalled because of heavy Vietnamese resistance and difficulties within the Chinese supply system. On 21 February, the advance resumed against Cao Bang in the far north and against the all-important regional hub of Lang Son. Chinese troops entered Cao Bang on 27 February, but the city was not secured completely until 2 March. Lang Son fell two days later. On 5 March, the Chinese, saying Vietnam had been sufficiently chastised, announced that the campaign was over. Beijing declared its "lesson" finished and the PLA withdrawal was completed on 16 March." Then in this source, China did tremendous damage to Vietnam: "According to the Website SinoVietnameseWar.com, the legacy of the war is enduring, particularly in Vietnam. In this nation already devastated by two recent wars, the Chinese in all essence, implemented a "scorched-earth policy" as they retreated back to China, causing extensive damage to the Vietnamese countryside and infrastructure. Villages were reduced to rubble, roads and railroads received damage at the hands of the Chinese." It also stated that the main objective of China attacking Vietnam is to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud.
4. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg This source titled " Military History ". It is a summary book about all the wars from year ancient time to 2000. No where in that source described any details such as: strategic goals, tactics, course of the war, outcome, aftermath, ect. It has more credential than the other junk sources you provided but it is still no where near the source I provided: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas
Used the exactly the same source I provided: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis . A book written by King C. Chen. In other words. Your source: Military History is utterly quoting from the source that I provided !! Therefore, my source has total supremacy over your source !! Stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War and CHEN (1987)." Therefore, your source is utterly telling everyone that my source: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas ( China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis, a book written by CHEN in 1983 ) is the best source and must be used as the undisputed source for this article. In my source on page 32 section 2, Evaluation. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Hydro Jets ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
and see where your source is quoting and copying from !! Do you remember what Rajmaan told you about reliable source? If not, I suggest you go read his contents.
At last, Spartacus. You need to stop your endless arguing. The main source you provided has no credential in this article. There is not going to be a dispute resolution request. If you continue to vandalize this page. Your edits will be reverted for disruptive editing and you will be blocked. You have already been warned by admin. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 13:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You are 100% correct. To matter even worse. Spartacus' latest source directly used my source as its foundation and his source mistakenly stated that China was "defeated". However, my source which is the one his source cited from, NEVER said that. In fact, it clearly cited that both sides claimed victory. This means that his source is a junk source despite being a book and it used my source as its foundations!!! Spartacus used that source, this means that he agrees with what that source agree; which is that my source is the best source. Yet he continuously pretending that he does not get that concept. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This source is a book using other source especially my source as its foundation. It Stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War written by CHEN (1987)." Therefore, Spartacus' source is utterly telling everyone that my source:
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas ( China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis, a book written by CHEN in 1983 ) is the best source and must be used as the undisputed source for this article.
My source should be used as the permanent source. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 15:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
you are only producing wp:or and misrepresenting my sources.
I've replied to you yesterday about your source, page no.32 says, "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed a victory over the other",107 No one had achieved its major objectives. While 107 says "China claims have been repeatedly cited above" which is not a neutral or independent. Spartacus! ( talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Admin NeilN. At this point, I feel there is absolutely no need to ever talk to Spartacus again. He still has zero concept of what a reliable source means. He has himself trapped beautifully with his own sources and moves. I will keep a close eye on this article and if he ever revert this article or the other article with his sources. I will notify you and other admins. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC) -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Brambleclawx thank you and I hope your viewpoint can assist in to find a resolution. Jon Hydro Jets source's page 32 states very clearly at the bottom that 107 chinese claims have been repeatedly cited above which are not independent or third party views. I ask Jon just one thing, how he will justify suppressing views of reliable sources if he don't have preconceived bias. Spartacus! ( talk) 04:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the pre-existing page stated that the conflict was a Vietnamese victory, as suggested by several sources brought forth by Spartacus!." Brambleclawx. The pre-existing page stated that both sides claimed victory, please see the links below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&diff=731406747&oldid=729766616 However, Spartacus used his totally unreliable source titled: "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics." to alter the article. His source merely has a single page of blurry picture to "support" his claim, and not to mention totally none credential as it is titled: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics. http://www.palgrave.com/br/book/9781137412355
Spartacus ultimately agrees with this source, because he stated this source: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4rju7ovOAhWMq48KHTNJDxoQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false It is a poorly written book in military history. His source completely used my source as its foundation. The title of my source and its author King C. CHEN is clearly shown in first paragraph. In his source, it stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War and CHEN (1987)." Which means that his source 100% agrees that my source: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen, is the best source. Spartacus' source is poorly written because it falsely stated that Vietnam "won", but in the real source, the source which Spartacus' book is founded which is my source: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen. Never stated that!! In fact. It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." This is on page 32, under section Evaluation. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas Therefore, Spartacus has himself beaten and totally trapped by his own source and moves. Not only is his source lying, it is also quoting from a real reliable source. Both conditions make his source totally worthless ! In addition, he also listed many other bad sources such as internet source quoting directly from Wikipedia, however he only list the content "supporting" Vietnam but not the other materials that supports China ! ( Please see the discussion above. ) Here is a counter example: http://www.war-memorial.net/Sino-Vietnamese-War--3.167 This is a source stated that: "After a brief incursion into northern Vietnam, Chinese troops withdrew less than a month later, and both sides claimed victory." This source is a source that quotes from Wikipedia itself. He also listed several books that are related to foreign policy and culture which are totally not reliable source as was shown by Rajmaan. ( Please see the discussion above ). -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
What Brambleclawx said I agree with them. It will be better if we will present facts in the Aftermath section. I agree with that. And for users, who are suppressing views of reliable sources, I would to say, your personal commentary and WP:OR has no value to us. you can't suppress WP:RS views on spurious ground, that it is written by a economist? And I also want to mention others editors those who say they can't read the given source because the picture is blurry. For your kind information sources don't need to be always available online. You can take out the print it from other webs or you can buy the book also. Thank you. Spartacus! ( talk) 09:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
-- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 11:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Note to editors involved: it looks to me like this dispute isn't going anywhere, so I have posted this to the Reliable Source Noticeboard for other editors to offer their opinions. Bramble claw x 14:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
I am posting here based upon advice received from Tokyogirl79 at Talk:Sarah Tiana#Possible sources and would appreciate any feedback on whether this and this are considered reliable sources, paricularly for establishing Wikipedia notability for Sarah Tiana. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
We're being hit with a Daily Mail controversy at Talk:2016 Nice attack, mainly due to User:John's tireless crusade against the newspaper: here, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, something at Amber Rudd about the Daily Mail, Chris Grayling, David Davis, Amber Rudd, Theresa May [29] [30], Tony Blair, Andrea Leadsom, Appropriate Adult (still using the "no tabloids on BLPs" line), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack&diff=prev&oldid=727744025 2016 Ataturk Airport attack. And that's only in the span from July 1 to July 18!
Now the excuse is that he is against tabloids, but it is curious that Daily Mail, one of the UK's largest newspapers, is described in tabloid journalism as a "middle market" tabloid, as opposed to red tops. According to the Daily Mail article, it has received various awards on journalism. So it seems like he is single-handedly trying to create a policy against using this newspaper, which I don't think is really well rooted but in any case we should have a RSN verdict about. From what I've seen, Daily Mail tends to pick up everything it can, which occasionally means it has wrong facts but most of the time makes it an invaluable resource for digging deeper into an issue. My response would never be to delete it, but to find extra sources for contentious claims made from it. Anyway, I think we need people here to provide some guidance about the source. If we need a crusade against it, then is there a better way to do that than having one editor grinding his axe? And if we don't, can you tell him to knock it off? Wnt ( talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Previous discussions: 201 (hostile-ish), 196 (hostile), 192 (inconclusive), 163 (inconclusive), and something resembling a vote at 151, which said that it was OK to use for non-contentious claims and on a case by case basis. John was involved in many of these conversations as a detractor. The question is, do we have any real change from the previous consensus that it is OK to use unless there's a reason not to? In which case the current pattern of deletions is unjustifiable. Wnt ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the Daily Mail is reliable for matters outside the area of "celebrity gossip" and noting that headlines are not articles. Alas - I know of zero really "reliable sources" for celebrity gossip - thus I would favour elimination of such gossip even when sourced to The Guardian. I have pointed out a few times now that newspapers no longer perform "fact checking" and this has not changed. In fact, more "non-facts" than ever get into newspapers than ever before. Collect ( talk) 12:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: Recent cases England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions Daily Mail sued - as was everyone else including The Times, AP etc. [35] The Times. Actually a slew of them, for some reason. I fear we must consider The Times as "not reliable" as a result. [36] "The Times refused to act responsibly. It is such conduct which invokes the concept of deterrence as a marker and a warning that such conduct cannot represent responsible journalism". Collect ( talk) 14:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
My position on this is the same as Laura's, posted above: "There is never any reason to use the Mail as a source because if what they print is a fact, it will be covered in other sources ..., from the Guardian through the Times to the Telegraph. If you post something sourced to the Mail which can't be easily sourced elsewhere, any editor is absolutely correct to remove it, because there's a good chance it's unreliable." That's wholly sensible to me. Neutrality talk 15:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
See [38] for the discussion.
As asked for in the prior section. Collect ( talk) 23:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Source:
[49]. Quote in italics: Najib, who has used every ounce of his power to obstruct investigations into the scandal – a charge he denies – is not mentioned by name in the US lawsuits, which refer to him as “Malaysian Official 1”.
Article:
Najib Razak
Diff:
[50]
The material in the diff is not exactly what is stated in the source, but the topic is similar. Question: does the Guardian source mean that the article can identify "Malaysian Official 1" as Najib? I'm inclining towards "no", but am just making sure. Other background articles on who "Malaysian Official 1" is if necessary: [51], [52], [53]. Banedon ( talk) 06:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday and today a few different IP addresses (that I assume are the s ame e ditor since they add similar material with the same citation template error) have added names to List of people with bipolar disorder that I felt were weakly sourced and reverted, but I've been unreverted multiple times despite my explanation about reliable sources, etc. on the IP's talkpage. Here's one example where they reinserted Winston Churchill for the 2nd time sourced to this blog written by a high school student. With one exception, all of the names they've added are historical figures with speculative, posthumous diagnoses, which I think is unencyclopedic per WP:SPECULATION and it's potentially harmful according to some academic sources or "fudged pseudoscience" according to others. One source actually talks about this specific list article (my emphasis):
Wikipedia lists some 65 prominent historical and contemporary figures who are considered Manic-depressives, including Frank Bruno, Winston Churchill, Charles Dickens, Jimi Hendrix, Vivien Leigh, Spike Milligan, Isaac Newton and Vincent Van Gogh. The accuracy with which these contemporary or post hoc diagnoses concur with ICD-10 criteria is variable.
IMO they're basically saying that WP indiscriminately lists historical figures as being "manic depressives". Some academics have claimed Beethoven had autism, some say depression, some bipolar. He'd be on every list. Where does it stop? Obviously the blog by the HS student isn't RS, but what, if any, source is reliable for a speculative, retrospective diagnosis of a mental disorder? Personally, I'm inclined to err on the side of not including, but I wonder what other people think? —PermStrump (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
"Essay contest winners" != "reliable sources". And the List should separate deceased persons for hown the "diagnosis" is speculative in any event. Collect ( talk) 14:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
So here's the question in a nutshell: can official Chinese government sources be used for claims about the position of governments other than the Chinese government regarding the Philippines_v._China case? There's a massive sprawling discussion of the issue currently taking up most of that article's talk page, with many specific sources involved (Xinhua, the Chinese Embassy, etc.), so it's hard to be as specific as the guidelines at the top of this noticeboard recommend, but we'd really benefit from some opinions from editors not previously involved in the dispute. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 06:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Darouet & @ Someguy1221 the user Chris Hallquist has violated our explicit consensus of one Wikipedia page, description with facts can be found [ here]. In this particular case, basically we want to find out number of countries which support China or the Philippines based on information from both governments, including self-proclaimed information, and this analysis has been done in different other places such as AMTI or recent report, so usage of the government statements is explicitly defined for this specific purpose. Based on your feedback, I think Chris has misunderstood your feedback and quoted your feedback as "both of the editors who've weighed in so far agree Chinese government sources should not be cited for the position of governments other than China.". Please clear this confusion so he understands usage of the information from both governments is very specific for the analysis. You can either put your comments here, or in that Talk page. Here I agree with Someguy1221's comment and the statement "it can be used for attributed statements when China's official position is relevant." points right to this particular analysis we're working on. Similarly I agree with Darouet's comment, especially "then attribution to the state media source would certainly be required" which also points right to our analysis. Thanks you. Toto11zi ( talk) 04:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to participate: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Are presentation materials, such as a PDF of slides used by a speaker at a technology summit, usable as reliable sources on the topic the material discusses? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 21:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Which if any of these sources [57] [58] [59] [60] are reliable and support the following claims about the computer game Endgame: Singularity?
The game was originally written in August 2005 by a programmer with the pseudonym "evilmrhenry" (EMH software) in one week for the first PyWeek competition.
Thanks.
I humbly ask that both myself and the other involved editor refrain from commenting here. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 00:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Hyder, Alaska#Law enforcement for background. Unscintillating opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Hyder, Alaska, which another editor almost immediately closed as off-topic, suggesting passing the buck to this page instead. I suspect that this NYT story was the impetus behind resurrecting this issue from the dead after so many years. Both that story and Hyder's entry at the Community Database Online, maintained by the Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs, offer the impression that Hyder is served by the Ketchikan-area post of the Alaska State Troopers on a strictly infrequent basis and sees no other law enforcement presence. Neither goes into sufficient enough detail, but what mention they do make contradicts the sources Unscintillating mentioned. What little interaction I've had with Niteshift36 reveals a propensity for turning every discussion into a ridiculously protracted argument, which was providing me with zero incentive to seek out higher-quality sources. I'll give it a try if I make it to the library this week, though. As far as details: if Hyder's telephone service is tied into Stewart's local exchange, I would think that to mean that calling 9-1-1, even from the American side, gets you a dispatcher in Stewart rather than one in Ketchikan. Also, I know little about Canadian jurisprudence, but in Alaska, a town the size of Stewart wouldn't have a judge, but might have a magistrate. I also don't know enough to say whether or not that would make any difference, but I would tend to agree with an earlier comment that such a situation would require an international treaty. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
My statement at WP:Editing policy was,The statement in question says, "and calling the police means a Canadian Mountie will respond". The source for this statement is, "the police are of the Mountie variety". The editors here have shown general agreement that they think this source is reliable in this statement...Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
One possible next step here is to restore the text that was acceptable for years, based on <ref name="Whitfield2004">. Unscintillating ( talk) 01:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)All sources agree, even if without satisfactory detail, that the RCMP are active across the international border at Hyder. The phrase that foreign police "pop in to say hello" is attributed to Ken Jennings. Three Google book sources repeat the phrase that "the police are of the Mountie variety". A Google book source from the University of British Columbia Press dated in 1975 calls the role an unofficial presence, but an editor in 2006 claims that Canadian judges in Stewart are paid by Alaska to handle misdemeanor cases under US law.
However, the second source you removed stated, "the police are of the Mountie variety". Your claim is that this statement, "didn't even talk about the subject", diff. Unscintillating ( talk) 12:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
They do, in fact use the RCMP and the Canadian courts. Through an Alaskan state provided supplement to their salaries, 2 judges in Stewart were educated in certain differences between Canadian constitutional law and American/AK state constitutional law. Civil law remains American as well, although this is not an issue, as the civil doctrine is identical in both countries- Preponderance of the evidence instead of reasonable doubt, Negligence, the reasoble person doctrine. Provided by agreement with the canadiens, Hyder misdemenor crimes are identical to Stewerts. Alaska state misdemenors do not exist in Stewert. A RCMP in Stewert is permitted to arrest US citizens in Hyder for misdemenor charges, and try them in Canadien courts. Felony charges, however are handled by State Troopers brought in, but arrest and holding is allowed to be done by RCMP officers while waiting for the trooper. It's a mix of both legal systems...-AKMask 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've a question about whether the website thegeektwins.com is or would be considered a reliable source, its used as the citation for a pop culture reference concerning the battleship USS Iowa (BB-61) appearing in a mockumentary ( the link to the specific webpage cited at geektwins). My every instinct is to pull the line out of the article on WP:WIAFA and WP:MILPOP grounds (which cover, broadly, WP:NOTTRIVIA), however I need a legitimate reason to do so. Right now, from an AGF standpoint, its one small line and one citation, so I haven't got solid grounds to pull out the line since it is referenced and in a mockumentary the ship could be considered a main character. That just leaves the reliable sources angle, so input from this request would help determine my next course of action. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Appears to misuse reliable sources to make a specific claim of fact not found in either source, as far as I can tell. In fact, it appears to aver in Wikipedia's voice that Higham was an "assiduous researcher" even going so far as to state that those who call him anything else are liars ("belied").
In short, is the sentence acclaiming Higham's absolute veracity supported by the sources given and is the wording of the claim supported by reliable sources here? Collect ( talk) 12:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
At Carvedilol the external links section lists "Physicians Desk Reference Info on Carvedilol" with a link to [ http://www.drugs.com/pdr/carvedilol.html ], but that link redirects to [ https://www.drugs.com/mtm/carvedilol.html ]. Drugs.com explains the redirect at [ https://www.drugs.com/pdr/ ] which says that drugs.com no longer contains info from Physicians Desk Reference. I assume that [ https://www.drugs.com/mtm/ ], which refers to Multum Consumer Information, is also relevant.
Normally I would have simply updated the changed URL, but in this case the content of the ref has been changed, and the article now says things like "...it can block receptors that assist in opening the airways" that I assume were in the PDR info but are now not in the source cited.
And Wikipedia has over 1700 citations to drugs.com. :(
What to do? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
This is about https://targetstudy.com/
This website is linked in a number of articles.
I question whether this is a reliable source for information about educational institutions in India.
It would appear to me that the assertion that the website is "a sincere attempt to provide its prospective users the most accurate and updated information about the course of study they are seeking" - is quite without any other verification.
What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Currently an article from Lifesitenews.com is being used as a source in the article Homosexuality and psychology (as source 4). I suspect this is not a reliable source but I wanted to seek the opinion of others on whether it is reliable or not before removing it. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I want to use this defunct website for the article James Dreyfus to verify the disputed content, now discussed at WP:BLPN. Is the website reliable? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:32, 3 August 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 208 | Archive 209 | Archive 210 | Archive 211 | Archive 212 | → | Archive 215 |
In an article about Company A can information about a deal with Company B be sourced from Company B's press release? Is such a press release sufficiently independent from Company A? Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 12:48, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I wanted to check if http://www.pickdup.com/pokemon-go-stats.html is a reliable source for sharing latest stats on Pokemon Go. I also wanted to check if Pickdup.com/stats is a reliable source according to wikipedia standards for sharing and citing factual data. Their editorial policy is mentioned http://www.pickdup.com/editorial-policy.html. I was confused if I should be using their website as reference. your help will be extremely valuable.
Rahyl Yadav ( talk) 19:38, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
An unattributed quote from Maurice Chatelaine, an engineer who wrote OurAncestors Came From Outer Space, A NASA Expert Confirms Mankind's Extraterrestrial Origins, is being used in this article. [1] (evidently I'm ignorant for thinking a fringe book by an engineer who was a NASA subcontractor isn't a reliable source). I reverted but it was replaced. With the reversion and personal attack I won't AGF anymore and probably the rest of the edits need checking as well. Doug Weller, 08:30, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
The insistence that it is a "fringe" book, when it is not, and it is in fact a very reliable source.
This book should not be considered "fringe" as it has now been proven by multiple sources, researchers, scientist, archeologist, historians via factual cuneiform tablets that we in fact did have other being visitation from outside of Earth (not necessarily outside of our solar system) with clear documentation of what was done, how it was done, and why it was done.This passage, right here, is a highly problematic statement for a wiki editor. To be concise: Not only are you wrong, but you are so very wrong that even when Hollywood chooses to portray your assertions as accurate in a science fiction film they make a point of lampshading exactly how ridiculous such beliefs are. Allow me to state that another way:
It's rather odd that having the genius to develop interspacial travel, they arrived to develop one of the clumsiest systems of writing imaginableAhh, but you forget that they taught us agriculture and how to construct large monuments. And the techniques we had there were... Hmmm... Also quite primitive and regressive. Almost as if we were figuring out writing, agriculture and large scale building on our own. But still, that doesn't rule out involvement from aliens! It just kinda says some things about those aliens. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 12:42, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't know if it is appropriate or not to post this here, but is anybody of you connected to Oricon's Sales Website. If yes, could you provide me a prose about the album's chart run and sales? Ping me when something my appear. Best, Cartoon network freak ( talk) 03:35, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
1. http://www.sputnikmusic.com/review/37949/Shadow-Of-The-Colossus-Shadow-of-the-Colossus/ 2. /info/en/?search=Shadow_of_the_Colossus#Deathcore_band 3. The article for this video game, "Shadow of the Colossus," includes this under the section "Further Adaptations":
Deathcore band[edit] There is a deathcore band named Shadow of the Colossus. Many of the band's lyrics and album art are inspired by the video game.[105]
I am uncertain whether this band is notable enough to be included in this article. The citation for this contribution is a review from Sputnikmusic, which is site primarily driven by user submissions, however, this specific citation is to a review by Sputnikmusic Staff. The only other sources I've found on this band are more user-driven sites, such as Facebook, last.fm, and Metal-Archives. Outside of this niche/scene of heavy metal music, this band does not seem notable, and this contribution seems more like a short little promotional snippet for an indie band.
Looking to discuss this further. Thanks. Kevinjaems ( talk) 17:05, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Nicrorus, Second Skin, Steel, and Masem: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinjaems ( talk • contribs)
The source and the article have been a subject of a prior discussion here at RSN: Franz Kurowski for a GA article (WWII). The article has been nominated for a good article reassessment (GAR), and additional eyes would be welcome:
K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:53, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Can someone please point me to prior decisions regarding the use of a CV as a RS or acceptable source in a BLP, please? Atsme 📞 📧 14:58, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris, perhaps you can help me understand something I find a bit confusing. It may be causing me to give academia too much credit. I was inclined to think that a CV or article or most anything else published on a university website which is managed and overseen by the university would be considered a form of "peer reviewed academic publication". With that in mind, I looked to WP:RS which states: Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses. Your thoughts? Atsme 📞 📧 04:44, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
I have to point out that in the case of a CV published on a University's web page, they probably used the same document -- or its predecessor -- in their vetting of the applicant -- to hire the person! So, presumably, the university believed the person wasn't lying on their CV/resume! People do, but that's a different issue -- and one that gets people fired. So even if the U doesn't edit or vet the CV, they just say, "send it to IT..." there is a presumption of verifiability that one wouldn't get, say, if they published their CV on their own blog... Montanabw (talk) 06:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
I am uncertain as to whether this article on the website Free Thought Project is a reliable source for the content in Shooting of Alton Sterling it is being used to support (it's currently reference 10 in that article). Given that we don't have an article on Free Thought Project, I suspect the answer to the reliability question is no. Everymorning (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
First of all, not the book. My question is if the website Odyssey is, in general, a reliable source. I don't have a specific article in mind. The website, which I fully admit I have a conflict of interest with (I'm a Content Creator for them.), has articles mainly published by thousands of college students. They do, as can be discerned from their job application page, have a structured system including a Content Creator. After the Content Creator, well, creates, the written piece then goes to the Editor in Chief (also a student) and then to the Managing Editor, who is not a student, but works at the corporate offices of Odyssey. The EiC's and content creators are broken up by college campus, as can also be seen on the job application page. The MEs manage several campuses at once. While a lot part of the content is GIF-centric, a lot of it is also well-written opinion pieces or well-sourced news stories, both of which can be either local or national. There is not currently any Wikipedia article about Odyssey, though there used to be one, The Odyssey Newspaper, which I marked for and got speedy deletion (G11). I do not plan to create another article about them at this point in time. I merely want to know if, in general, they are a reliable source. -- Gestrid ( talk) 06:00, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
In an article about Frances Cress Welsing a dispute concerning the reliability of encyclopedia.com (specifically this article) has arisen. More specifically K.e.coffman has expessed doubt about its reliability. Since no consensus seems to be forthcoming, I am hereby soliciting third party opinions in the hope of achieving a clear consensus. Thanks. Kleuske ( talk) 08:37, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
In general, is the source reliable?
Specifically, celebsmemoir.com/adam-gontier-height-weight-body-statistics-and-net-worth/ was added a source for birth dates. I don't see any authors. I don't see an "about" page to explain if there's oversight. I would argue not reliable. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 06:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
See Steven Emerson#Investigative Project on Terrorism. Is this an RS for anything other than itself, and in particular for the BLPs using it? This is basically a one-man show by Steven Emerson, who wrote that "“In Britain, it’s not just no-go zones,” Emerson said. “There are actual cities like Birmingham that are totally Muslim, where non-Muslims just simply don’t go in. And parts of London, there are actually Muslim religious police that actually beat and actually wound seriously anyone who doesn’t dress according to Muslim, religious Muslim attire.” [2] which made a number of people wonder about how thorough his research was, to say the least. See also this SPLC article [3] and Loonwatch. [4] Doug Weller talk 13:47, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Would the website
sharkattackfile
Is currently in the Chrysler article. Alas, the Encyclopaedia Britannica is not only a tertiary source, it does not make the claims ascribed to it! In fact, almost all of this section is unsupported OR, including the $2 billion claim or anything else. Nor does the NPR "timeline" remotely support anything more than "1979: CEO Lee Iacocca initiates a government bailout of the nearly bankrupt Chrysler Corp. 1980: Congress passes and President Jimmy Carter signs a loan guarantee act for Chrysler, in which the government essentially acts as a co-signer of a $1.5 billion loan for the company. During the next few years, Chrysler reports record profits. 1983: Chrysler pays off its federally guaranteed loans seven years early. The company introduces minivans, creating a new market niche with the Plymouth Voyager and Dodge Caravan." which is not what is claimed in the Chrysler Wikipedia article.
Would non-involved folks please note the clear verification problems with these claims, which, I fear, are the tip of the iceberg on this article? Collect ( talk) 13:41, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
This is a slightly stretching the remit of this board since it's a question of independence rather than reliability, but this's the closest we've got. The question is:
The Deseret News is a notable and reliable source for the purposes of using it as a cite ref in an article, generally -- I think most people would probably agree with with that. They're a large and long-established general-audience world-and-local-news newspaper with a large circulation, a mainstream point of view, and, I'd assume, an active fact-checking arm.
That doesn't mean they are independent of the Mormom Church for the purposes of establishing whether a subject covered by them is notable enough to have an article (that's where the "independent of the subject" clause of WP:GNG comes in).
The paper is owned by the Mormon Church. While their editorial side appears to be pretty much like any other general-audience paper, I don't know if they would investigate wrongdoing in the Mormon Church with any vigor. Probably not.
And they do print Mormon Church news to a much greater degree than, say, the Boston Globe or whatever. On the other hand, they are based in Salt Lake City, where the doings of the Mormon Church are important regardless. If they didn't cover the church much it would be odd, and not good business.
So I dunno. My inclination is to read the "independent of the subject" clause fairly narrowly and the Deseret News would be outside that clause. It's a newspaper, the ownership is peripheral to what it is. Similarly as the Christian Science Monitor is independent of the Christian Science Church for WP:GNG purposes IMO.
Contrast with the magazine Ensign which is also owned by the Mormons, but is 1) mainly directed to Mormons, and 2) mainly has articles about Mormons, the Mormon Church, and so forth. It's a house organ, basically. The Deseret News isn't.
But I don't know. I don't read the Deseret News and I'm not really familiar with it. Maybe I have wrong idea about the paper. Anybody have an idea? Herostratus ( talk) 05:15, 9 July 2016 (UTC)
User:Lavrense thinks that a book without an ISBN (SILVA, Paulo Napoleão Nogueira da (1994) (in Portuguese). Monarquia: verdades e mentiras. São Paulo: GRD.) is an unreliable source. [7] I think it is a reliable source. Please comment at Talk:Line of succession to the former Brazilian throne#ISBNs. Thanks. DrKay ( talk) 06:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I want to use some information from this link Taylor Swift Concert Review but I don't know it is a reliable source or not although Our Wiki have a article about this online magazine. Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 06:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
I don't seem to be getting an answer to this and I've searched the archives for one but found nothing. A lot of artists have an Instagram profile and most have been "verified" with a badge to show that the account legitimately belongs to the artist. These badges can be found beside their name. The issue I'm running into with this is that there's a lack of sources for rising artists that haven't become known enough yet. In my case I have been collecting sources for Nikki Yanofsky. However she makes a lot of posts on her verified Instagram account that contain information about her upcoming songs and albums but I'm not sure if those posts can be used in citations. For example, there's a lot of hype going around the fandom about her upcoming album called "Solid Gold" and yesterday she released a single off the album called "Young Love." This is HUGE news considering that no one has been able to hear any new music from her for more than a couple years now. But it's just barely making it on her Wikipedia articles, both for the album and the single. I and a few other editors added Instagram citations linking to the posts that include the correct info, but they're all being taken down with the summary saying that Instagram can't be used. It had the date, time, name, and site all in it with a direct quote from Nikki Yanofsky herself.
Wikipedia Introduction to referencing with Wiki Markup/4
"Self-published media, where the author and publisher are the same, including newsletters, personal websites, books, patents, open wikis, personal or group blogs, and tweets, are usually not acceptable as sources. The general exception is where the author is an established expert with a previous record of third-party publications on a topic; in this case, their self-published work may be considered reliable for that topic (but not other topics). Even then, third-party publications are still preferable."
I'd argue that Nikki Yanofsky is an expert on the topic of Nikki Yanofsky.
Instagram Profile: https://www.instagram.com/officialnikki_y/ (Subject to change.)
Me00lmeals ( talk) 07:56, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Does anyone know whether festivalgenius.com is considered RS? I believe that the content is added with oversight from the actual festivals, but am not 100% sure. Can anyone familiar with the website confirm? -- Jpcase ( talk) 21:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Is an article written by Eric Markowitz [10] and published by Newsweek magazine a reliable source for this assertion?
This is for the SIG MCX article. Felsic2 ( talk) 15:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
The above source has been challenged as unreliable for the attributed view removed here. Is Gilbert Achcar writing in a book published by Henry Holt and Company a reliable source? Seems absurd even asking this, but seeking outside opinions on the quality of that source for that material. nableezy - 00:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I am the one who challenged the source, but only because it is more of a suggestion. Another editor has called it euphemistically a rhetorical question. The expert is a know academic, but the statement that is used as a sourced sounds like a sentence from an op-ed opinion piece. Debresser ( talk) 16:49, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
The above is used in Charlotte Laws, specifically as the first reference in Charlotte Laws#Party crashing expert. It's used to support the claim that Laws is listed as the fourth most notorious party crasher in the world, beating Queen Elizabeth, Bill Murray, Lady Gaga and Serena Williams. The claim that a head of state is a "party crasher" sounds odd. Is this a reliable source? Autarch ( talk) 17:39, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Possibly relevant quote from their T&C:
TheRichest is an entertainment based website providing commentary, general information in relation to celebrities, luxury items, athletes, businesspersons, public figures, lifestyles, wealthy individuals, current trends and entertainment. Information on the site may contain errors or inaccuracies; the Website does not make any warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the sites content. The Website does not provide any warranty or guarantee as to the accuracy of the information. You acknowledge that such information and materials may contain inaccuracies and errors and we expressly exclude liability for any such inaccuracies or errors.
So they're certainly not standing behind their clickbait listicles. Trivialist ( talk) 01:52, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I've been coming across a few references that use information from http://www.startrek.com, and I am a bit concerned that there doesn't appear to be any editorial overview whatsoever on this site. There isn't any indication that this is being written by anyone but 2-3 fans with a lot of trek knowledge and absolutely no sourcing of statements. I know that fan sites are a slippery slop into OR (vigilance is an utter pain in the ass when it comes to series like Doctor Who and Game of Thrones), so I thought it best to help define what sorts of sites we are going to allow citing from. I didn't see from an archive search that this site has come up before, so thoughts on the matter would be helpful. - Jack Sebastian ( talk) 03:35, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
Hello all. I am posting to this noticeboard in the hopes that a resolution can be come to with more input from impartial editors who are experienced in dealing with the concept of reliable sources. On Sino-Vietnamese War, a dispute has been ongoing for several days now regarding the outcome of the conflict in the infobox. The article initially stated that "both sides claimed victory"; recently User:Spartacus! changed this to suggest that the conflict was instead a Vietnamese victory. A series of discussions followed, with User:Jon Hydro Jets and User:Rajmaan arguing against the change. I noticed this dispute after Jon Hydro Jets, editing under his IP, contacted a couple of admins accusing Spartacus! of vandalism and requesting blocks. User:NeilN denied the request and reminded Jon Hydro Jets to assume good faith and not accuse others of vandalism, an opinion I share, in light of the rather aggressive approach Jon Hydro Jets and Rajmaan have taken (that issue may be better addressed elsewhere).
After attempting to mediate the conflict as an uninvolved third party, my personal assessment is that the discussion has reached an impasse and no progress is going to made as none of the parties seem willing to budge. In summary, here are the arguments, and sources used:
It looked to me like both sides agreed with my suggestion, but then a continuation of the debate regarding reliability of sources brought forth by Spartacus continued immediately after, so I think at this point, the discussion would really benefit from further impartial opinions (beyond the IP who offered to be another uninvolved mediator, considering their fairly opinionated stance on the issue, as well as lack of edits and apparent copying of my first line when I first commented on the discussion).
A reminder to involved users, if you are commenting on this, to keep your tone civil. Continued personal attacks on people just because they have different opinions from you will probably not be appreciated by the people who are attempting to help resolve this dispute here. If I've missed or mis-represented your ideas, just present your reasons, sources, and refute the sources; there is no need to make comments about other editors' abilities to use and interpret sources. Bramble claw x 14:04, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Discussion by involved editors
|
---|
Him, Brambleclawx. Spartacus did budge on the outcome of the war. He already agreed with your conclusion. Therefore, there is no need to change the article. The argument is now between Spartacus and Rajmaan on weather Spartacus' other sources are reliable. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 15:02, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
No you did not! You clearly agreed with Brambleclawx's conclusion. Brambleclawx's original quote: "That said, after reviewing the sources, I would tend to say that a conclusion that "both sides claim victory" is more appropriate. This is not, however, because I think one source is trumping another due to being cited, or because I think anyone is acting in bad faith. I have an entirely different reasoning, which I hope both of you will consider. Perhaps the most important source to my conclusion is one brought up by Spartacus: Blinders, Blunders, and Wars. The key idea expressed here, is that in the past, scholars viewed the result to be a Chinese failure, but that more recently, scholars are interpreting it more favourably for the Chinese (i.e., not a complete failure after all). I believe the best way to move forward here, is to actually present this idea in the page itself, perhaps in the Aftermath section. It seems that nowadays, the prevalent view is that the results were not quite a failure for either side, but it would make for a much more balanced and informative article to actually discuss how that interpretation has changed over time. If anything, because you've all brought up so many sources, there is easily enough material now to present a section discussing how this view has changed, with good references to both the previous school of thought, and more recent changes in interpretation. I think this solution works well as a compromise: neither idea is completely shut out, and the article gets to be more balanced and detailed." Spartacus clearly said: "What Brambleclawx said I agree with them."
/info/en/?search=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_War#Source_dicussion_regarding_outcome_of_Sino-Vietnamese_War The 6-7 sources you provided: One is an internet source quoting directly from Wikipedia.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/october242010/vietnam-china-tk.php One is a book about economy without any information regarding the war, only a blurry picture.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=RrKYBgAAQBAJ&source=gbs_navlinks_s One is a book about culture and strategy.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=_CaeHdWv2YQC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Chinese+Strategic+Culture+and+Foreign+Policy+Decision-Making:+Confucianism&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjpvuLk_ZPOAhVi34MKHUdHBxoQ6AEIHTAA#v=onepage&q&f=false One is a book about foreign policy.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=q13fAAAAMAAJ&q=defending+china&dq=defending+china&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjq_YPT-5POAhVM2oMKHVIsDvUQ6AEIHTAA One is a book discussing blunders and blinders and wars. This is a source where Brambleclawx drew his conclusion. You however, did not even read your own source, instead you quoted from the book. The book is actually concluding the war in China's favor as it was pointed out by Brambleclawx.
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=5TThBQAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=Blinders,+Blunders,+and+Wars&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjP5JWY_JPOAhUC2IMKHbJ0BdUQ6AEIJjAA#v=onepage&q=Blinders%2C%20Blunders%2C%20and%20Wars&f=false One is a book summarizing military history, which it used my source as its foundation and it falsely stated that China was "defeated", in reality, the source stated that: "both sides claimed victory."
https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military#v=onepage&q&f=false You used the source: Military History to support your claim. However, your source lied about the outcome of the war. Most important of all, your source used my source as its foundation. You source stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War written by CHEN (1987)." Your source stated that my source: Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979: A military Analysis written by King C. CHEN is the best source and you agreed with it because you used this source !! However, my source clearly stated that: ""In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." On page 32 under evaluation section. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_War&action=history
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Talk:Sino-Vietnamese_War&diff=731795849&oldid=731790442 -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 15:40, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Brambleclawx is that person. He is the non-involved editor! Most important of all, you Spartacus agreed with his conclusion, that: "Both Sides Claimed Victory" is the more appropriate outcome. You wrote them down in black and white, now you and Rajmaan are battling over your first source's credibility ! At last, you can not remove other people's comment in the talk section! Remember what you Spartacus has been telling everyone ?? You are literally flip flopping, on one hand you are complaining that other people suppressing your views by debunking your bad sources. On the other hand, you remove other people's comments without any justifications and keep getting caught at it ! -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 16:45, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
-- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 16:54, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
|
Discussion by involved editors
|
---|
Hello, I have found a great source for the result of the war. This source is solely dedicated to the war. It had over 200 pages of content discussing the objectives, strategies and outcomes of the war. This source fully qualifies as a Wikipedia reliable source and is far more credible than the source previous editors used which is an economic article and merely mentioning the war in a paragraph. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas This source clearly stated that both sides claimed victory. On page 32 "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed victory. No one had achieved its major objectives." This source is dedicated to the Sino-Vietnamese war, not some article regarding economy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 12:17, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
-- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 12:31, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
First, I am not a sockpuppet. I am just using internet at two different locations. I do not have two different registered account. The source I provided is more reliable than Spartacus'. His source has nothing to do with Sino-Vietnamese war and Sino-Soviet border conflict. It is an economy related article and thus not credible ! The source I provided are all dedicated war articles. The results were clearly stated and the war was thoroughly discussed ! -- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:10, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Sources don't become unreliable because you say so? [14] it meets the standards listed at wp:rs. the source has dedicated a full table with heading "Wars and armed conflicts in asia, 1946-2000", and further cites RS "Macquarie Research (Aug 2010), Norman Friedman (1999)" . Spartacus! ( talk) 13:27, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
No where in your source described any details, objectives, strategy and outcome of any conflicts !! The sources I provided: 1. https://www.cna.org/CNA_files/PDF/D0022974.A2.pdf 2. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas These sources are 100% reliable and satisfy every Wikipedia requirement as a reliable source. They were both over 200 pages long and described each war in absolute details, they are fully dedicated to each war not some economic article you privided!! They both stated the result of the war !! In short you failed!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:36, 23 July 2016 (UTC) -- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 13:43, 23 July 2016 (UTC) You looked at the source and you found it blurry? then buy it and read it at your home! This is not the excuse, It is clearly written Victorious - Vietnam : Defeated - China. The sources has failry represented wars and armed conflicts in Asia since 1946-2000, they have cited further sources from where they've taken the stats. And now about the sources you presented. The first source doesn't say what you're trying to say to us "both sides were victor". Your second source (as you said page no.32) In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed a victory over the other,107 No one had achieved its major objectives. While 107 says "China claims have been repeatedly cited above"! This is your source? stop this bs nonsense. Spartacus! ( talk) 14:09, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Your source is an economy article which does NOT qualify for a war article. Your source with a merely one page blurry picture does not even qualify for war article. If your reason is sound then anyone can write a book and place a picture in it and gain credibility. My sources are both fully dedicated to war articles. The results were clearly stated. Both sides claimed victory because neither side fully achieved their goals but manage to achieve certain goals. For China:
1. China showed the world that USSR at that time could not protect its new ally Vietnam which ended a possible two front war scenario for China. ( This is one of the major goals for China, this was clearly written in the article and thoroughly discussed. Your source did not mention any strategic values, reason for war, the course of the war what so ever, just a blurry picture that no one can even read !) For Vietnam:
1. China did not force Vietnam's withdraw from Cambodia.
What kind of agreement do you want to reach? We can settle a consensus agreement and stop this editing chaos together. Thank you. -- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 15:05, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
As I have shown above, his source shows a merely picture and it is blurry !! To make matter even worse, his source was solely related to economic issue. My source is dedicated to wars. Could you please keep an eye on this page, I know that Spartacus will be back messing with it again. As for you Spartacus, please stop now. -- 67.175.16.150 ( talk) 19:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Spartacus you added more useless sources.
This source quotes from Wikipedia itself !! " According to Wikipedia: Within a single day, the Chinese People's Liberation Army (PLA) had advanced some eight kilometers into Vietnam along a broad front. It then slowed and nearly stalled because of heavy Vietnamese resistance and difficulties within the Chinese supply system. On 21 February, the advance resumed against Cao Bang in the far north and against the all-important regional hub of Lang Son. Chinese troops entered Cao Bang on 27 February, but the city was not secured completely until 2 March. Lang Son fell two days later. On 5 March, the Chinese, saying Vietnam had been sufficiently chastised, announced that the campaign was over. Beijing declared its "lesson" finished and the PLA withdrawal was completed on 16 March." Then in this source, China did tremendous damage to Vietnam: "According to the Website SinoVietnameseWar.com, the legacy of the war is enduring, particularly in Vietnam. In this nation already devastated by two recent wars, the Chinese in all essence, implemented a "scorched-earth policy" as they retreated back to China, causing extensive damage to the Vietnamese countryside and infrastructure. Villages were reduced to rubble, roads and railroads received damage at the hands of the Chinese." It also stated that the main objective of China attacking Vietnam is to expose Soviet assurances of military support to Vietnam as a fraud.
4. https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg This source titled " Military History ". It is a summary book about all the wars from year ancient time to 2000. No where in that source described any details such as: strategic goals, tactics, course of the war, outcome, aftermath, ect. It has more credential than the other junk sources you provided but it is still no where near the source I provided: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas
Used the exactly the same source I provided: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis . A book written by King C. Chen. In other words. Your source: Military History is utterly quoting from the source that I provided !! Therefore, my source has total supremacy over your source !! Stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War and CHEN (1987)." Therefore, your source is utterly telling everyone that my source: http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas ( China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis, a book written by CHEN in 1983 ) is the best source and must be used as the undisputed source for this article. In my source on page 32 section 2, Evaluation. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jon Hydro Jets ( talk • contribs) 14:51, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
and see where your source is quoting and copying from !! Do you remember what Rajmaan told you about reliable source? If not, I suggest you go read his contents.
At last, Spartacus. You need to stop your endless arguing. The main source you provided has no credential in this article. There is not going to be a dispute resolution request. If you continue to vandalize this page. Your edits will be reverted for disruptive editing and you will be blocked. You have already been warned by admin. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 13:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
You are 100% correct. To matter even worse. Spartacus' latest source directly used my source as its foundation and his source mistakenly stated that China was "defeated". However, my source which is the one his source cited from, NEVER said that. In fact, it clearly cited that both sides claimed victory. This means that his source is a junk source despite being a book and it used my source as its foundations!!! Spartacus used that source, this means that he agrees with what that source agree; which is that my source is the best source. Yet he continuously pretending that he does not get that concept. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 21:18, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
This source is a book using other source especially my source as its foundation. It Stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War written by CHEN (1987)." Therefore, Spartacus' source is utterly telling everyone that my source:
http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas ( China's War Against Vietnam, 1979: A Military Analysis, a book written by CHEN in 1983 ) is the best source and must be used as the undisputed source for this article.
My source should be used as the permanent source. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 15:05, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
you are only producing wp:or and misrepresenting my sources.
I've replied to you yesterday about your source, page no.32 says, "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had both claimed a victory over the other",107 No one had achieved its major objectives. While 107 says "China claims have been repeatedly cited above" which is not a neutral or independent. Spartacus! ( talk) 16:07, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Admin NeilN. At this point, I feel there is absolutely no need to ever talk to Spartacus again. He still has zero concept of what a reliable source means. He has himself trapped beautifully with his own sources and moves. I will keep a close eye on this article and if he ever revert this article or the other article with his sources. I will notify you and other admins. -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 17:50, 24 July 2016 (UTC) -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 18:16, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
@Brambleclawx thank you and I hope your viewpoint can assist in to find a resolution. Jon Hydro Jets source's page 32 states very clearly at the bottom that 107 chinese claims have been repeatedly cited above which are not independent or third party views. I ask Jon just one thing, how he will justify suppressing views of reliable sources if he don't have preconceived bias. Spartacus! ( talk) 04:23, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
"From what I understand, and correct me if I am wrong, the pre-existing page stated that the conflict was a Vietnamese victory, as suggested by several sources brought forth by Spartacus!." Brambleclawx. The pre-existing page stated that both sides claimed victory, please see the links below:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Sino-Vietnamese_War&diff=731406747&oldid=729766616 However, Spartacus used his totally unreliable source titled: "The Global Rise of Asian Transformation: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics." to alter the article. His source merely has a single page of blurry picture to "support" his claim, and not to mention totally none credential as it is titled: Trends and Developments in Economic Growth Dynamics. http://www.palgrave.com/br/book/9781137412355
Spartacus ultimately agrees with this source, because he stated this source: https://books.google.co.in/books?id=VT7fAQAAQBAJ&pg=PA646&dq=China+military+failure+in+sino-vietnam+war+of+1979&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjC4rju7ovOAhWMq48KHTNJDxoQ6AEITTAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false It is a poorly written book in military history. His source completely used my source as its foundation. The title of my source and its author King C. CHEN is clearly shown in first paragraph. In his source, it stated that: "Perhaps the best two books on the Sino-Vietbamese war of 1979 are CHEN (1983), A military analysis of the Sino-Vietnamese War and CHEN (1987)." Which means that his source 100% agrees that my source: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen, is the best source. Spartacus' source is poorly written because it falsely stated that Vietnam "won", but in the real source, the source which Spartacus' book is founded which is my source: China's war against Vietnam, 1979: A military analysis. written by King C. Chen. Never stated that!! In fact. It clearly stated that: "In spite of the fact that both China and Vietnam had claimed victory over the other, no one had achieved its major objectives." This is on page 32, under section Evaluation. http://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1057&context=mscas Therefore, Spartacus has himself beaten and totally trapped by his own source and moves. Not only is his source lying, it is also quoting from a real reliable source. Both conditions make his source totally worthless ! In addition, he also listed many other bad sources such as internet source quoting directly from Wikipedia, however he only list the content "supporting" Vietnam but not the other materials that supports China ! ( Please see the discussion above. ) Here is a counter example: http://www.war-memorial.net/Sino-Vietnamese-War--3.167 This is a source stated that: "After a brief incursion into northern Vietnam, Chinese troops withdrew less than a month later, and both sides claimed victory." This source is a source that quotes from Wikipedia itself. He also listed several books that are related to foreign policy and culture which are totally not reliable source as was shown by Rajmaan. ( Please see the discussion above ). -- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 12:31, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
What Brambleclawx said I agree with them. It will be better if we will present facts in the Aftermath section. I agree with that. And for users, who are suppressing views of reliable sources, I would to say, your personal commentary and WP:OR has no value to us. you can't suppress WP:RS views on spurious ground, that it is written by a economist? And I also want to mention others editors those who say they can't read the given source because the picture is blurry. For your kind information sources don't need to be always available online. You can take out the print it from other webs or you can buy the book also. Thank you. Spartacus! ( talk) 09:00, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
-- Jon Hydro Jets ( talk) 11:44, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Note to editors involved: it looks to me like this dispute isn't going anywhere, so I have posted this to the Reliable Source Noticeboard for other editors to offer their opinions. Bramble claw x 14:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC) |
I am posting here based upon advice received from Tokyogirl79 at Talk:Sarah Tiana#Possible sources and would appreciate any feedback on whether this and this are considered reliable sources, paricularly for establishing Wikipedia notability for Sarah Tiana. Thanks in advance. -- Marchjuly ( talk) 01:47, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
We're being hit with a Daily Mail controversy at Talk:2016 Nice attack, mainly due to User:John's tireless crusade against the newspaper: here, Mohamed Lahouaiej-Bouhlel, something at Amber Rudd about the Daily Mail, Chris Grayling, David Davis, Amber Rudd, Theresa May [29] [30], Tony Blair, Andrea Leadsom, Appropriate Adult (still using the "no tabloids on BLPs" line), and [https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2016_Atat%C3%BCrk_Airport_attack&diff=prev&oldid=727744025 2016 Ataturk Airport attack. And that's only in the span from July 1 to July 18!
Now the excuse is that he is against tabloids, but it is curious that Daily Mail, one of the UK's largest newspapers, is described in tabloid journalism as a "middle market" tabloid, as opposed to red tops. According to the Daily Mail article, it has received various awards on journalism. So it seems like he is single-handedly trying to create a policy against using this newspaper, which I don't think is really well rooted but in any case we should have a RSN verdict about. From what I've seen, Daily Mail tends to pick up everything it can, which occasionally means it has wrong facts but most of the time makes it an invaluable resource for digging deeper into an issue. My response would never be to delete it, but to find extra sources for contentious claims made from it. Anyway, I think we need people here to provide some guidance about the source. If we need a crusade against it, then is there a better way to do that than having one editor grinding his axe? And if we don't, can you tell him to knock it off? Wnt ( talk) 14:47, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Previous discussions: 201 (hostile-ish), 196 (hostile), 192 (inconclusive), 163 (inconclusive), and something resembling a vote at 151, which said that it was OK to use for non-contentious claims and on a case by case basis. John was involved in many of these conversations as a detractor. The question is, do we have any real change from the previous consensus that it is OK to use unless there's a reason not to? In which case the current pattern of deletions is unjustifiable. Wnt ( talk) 14:57, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
Generally speaking, the Daily Mail is reliable for matters outside the area of "celebrity gossip" and noting that headlines are not articles. Alas - I know of zero really "reliable sources" for celebrity gossip - thus I would favour elimination of such gossip even when sourced to The Guardian. I have pointed out a few times now that newspapers no longer perform "fact checking" and this has not changed. In fact, more "non-facts" than ever get into newspapers than ever before. Collect ( talk) 12:19, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Note: Recent cases England and Wales High Court (Chancery Division) Decisions Daily Mail sued - as was everyone else including The Times, AP etc. [35] The Times. Actually a slew of them, for some reason. I fear we must consider The Times as "not reliable" as a result. [36] "The Times refused to act responsibly. It is such conduct which invokes the concept of deterrence as a marker and a warning that such conduct cannot represent responsible journalism". Collect ( talk) 14:34, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
My position on this is the same as Laura's, posted above: "There is never any reason to use the Mail as a source because if what they print is a fact, it will be covered in other sources ..., from the Guardian through the Times to the Telegraph. If you post something sourced to the Mail which can't be easily sourced elsewhere, any editor is absolutely correct to remove it, because there's a good chance it's unreliable." That's wholly sensible to me. Neutrality talk 15:31, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
See [38] for the discussion.
As asked for in the prior section. Collect ( talk) 23:28, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Source:
[49]. Quote in italics: Najib, who has used every ounce of his power to obstruct investigations into the scandal – a charge he denies – is not mentioned by name in the US lawsuits, which refer to him as “Malaysian Official 1”.
Article:
Najib Razak
Diff:
[50]
The material in the diff is not exactly what is stated in the source, but the topic is similar. Question: does the Guardian source mean that the article can identify "Malaysian Official 1" as Najib? I'm inclining towards "no", but am just making sure. Other background articles on who "Malaysian Official 1" is if necessary: [51], [52], [53]. Banedon ( talk) 06:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday and today a few different IP addresses (that I assume are the s ame e ditor since they add similar material with the same citation template error) have added names to List of people with bipolar disorder that I felt were weakly sourced and reverted, but I've been unreverted multiple times despite my explanation about reliable sources, etc. on the IP's talkpage. Here's one example where they reinserted Winston Churchill for the 2nd time sourced to this blog written by a high school student. With one exception, all of the names they've added are historical figures with speculative, posthumous diagnoses, which I think is unencyclopedic per WP:SPECULATION and it's potentially harmful according to some academic sources or "fudged pseudoscience" according to others. One source actually talks about this specific list article (my emphasis):
Wikipedia lists some 65 prominent historical and contemporary figures who are considered Manic-depressives, including Frank Bruno, Winston Churchill, Charles Dickens, Jimi Hendrix, Vivien Leigh, Spike Milligan, Isaac Newton and Vincent Van Gogh. The accuracy with which these contemporary or post hoc diagnoses concur with ICD-10 criteria is variable.
IMO they're basically saying that WP indiscriminately lists historical figures as being "manic depressives". Some academics have claimed Beethoven had autism, some say depression, some bipolar. He'd be on every list. Where does it stop? Obviously the blog by the HS student isn't RS, but what, if any, source is reliable for a speculative, retrospective diagnosis of a mental disorder? Personally, I'm inclined to err on the side of not including, but I wonder what other people think? —PermStrump (talk) 03:59, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
"Essay contest winners" != "reliable sources". And the List should separate deceased persons for hown the "diagnosis" is speculative in any event. Collect ( talk) 14:01, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
So here's the question in a nutshell: can official Chinese government sources be used for claims about the position of governments other than the Chinese government regarding the Philippines_v._China case? There's a massive sprawling discussion of the issue currently taking up most of that article's talk page, with many specific sources involved (Xinhua, the Chinese Embassy, etc.), so it's hard to be as specific as the guidelines at the top of this noticeboard recommend, but we'd really benefit from some opinions from editors not previously involved in the dispute. Chris Hallquist ( talk) 06:08, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
@ Darouet & @ Someguy1221 the user Chris Hallquist has violated our explicit consensus of one Wikipedia page, description with facts can be found [ here]. In this particular case, basically we want to find out number of countries which support China or the Philippines based on information from both governments, including self-proclaimed information, and this analysis has been done in different other places such as AMTI or recent report, so usage of the government statements is explicitly defined for this specific purpose. Based on your feedback, I think Chris has misunderstood your feedback and quoted your feedback as "both of the editors who've weighed in so far agree Chinese government sources should not be cited for the position of governments other than China.". Please clear this confusion so he understands usage of the information from both governments is very specific for the analysis. You can either put your comments here, or in that Talk page. Here I agree with Someguy1221's comment and the statement "it can be used for attributed statements when China's official position is relevant." points right to this particular analysis we're working on. Similarly I agree with Darouet's comment, especially "then attribution to the state media source would certainly be required" which also points right to our analysis. Thanks you. Toto11zi ( talk) 04:53, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Interested editors are invited to participate: Wikipedia:Good article reassessment/Wolfgang Lüth/1. K.e.coffman ( talk) 18:41, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Are presentation materials, such as a PDF of slides used by a speaker at a technology summit, usable as reliable sources on the topic the material discusses? — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 21:52, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Which if any of these sources [57] [58] [59] [60] are reliable and support the following claims about the computer game Endgame: Singularity?
The game was originally written in August 2005 by a programmer with the pseudonym "evilmrhenry" (EMH software) in one week for the first PyWeek competition.
Thanks.
I humbly ask that both myself and the other involved editor refrain from commenting here. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 00:02, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
See Talk:Hyder, Alaska#Law enforcement for background. Unscintillating opened a thread at Wikipedia talk:Editing policy#Hyder, Alaska, which another editor almost immediately closed as off-topic, suggesting passing the buck to this page instead. I suspect that this NYT story was the impetus behind resurrecting this issue from the dead after so many years. Both that story and Hyder's entry at the Community Database Online, maintained by the Alaska Division of Community and Regional Affairs, offer the impression that Hyder is served by the Ketchikan-area post of the Alaska State Troopers on a strictly infrequent basis and sees no other law enforcement presence. Neither goes into sufficient enough detail, but what mention they do make contradicts the sources Unscintillating mentioned. What little interaction I've had with Niteshift36 reveals a propensity for turning every discussion into a ridiculously protracted argument, which was providing me with zero incentive to seek out higher-quality sources. I'll give it a try if I make it to the library this week, though. As far as details: if Hyder's telephone service is tied into Stewart's local exchange, I would think that to mean that calling 9-1-1, even from the American side, gets you a dispatcher in Stewart rather than one in Ketchikan. Also, I know little about Canadian jurisprudence, but in Alaska, a town the size of Stewart wouldn't have a judge, but might have a magistrate. I also don't know enough to say whether or not that would make any difference, but I would tend to agree with an earlier comment that such a situation would require an international treaty. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 07:00, 18 July 2016 (UTC)
My statement at WP:Editing policy was,The statement in question says, "and calling the police means a Canadian Mountie will respond". The source for this statement is, "the police are of the Mountie variety". The editors here have shown general agreement that they think this source is reliable in this statement...Unscintillating (talk) 05:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)
One possible next step here is to restore the text that was acceptable for years, based on <ref name="Whitfield2004">. Unscintillating ( talk) 01:25, 24 July 2016 (UTC)All sources agree, even if without satisfactory detail, that the RCMP are active across the international border at Hyder. The phrase that foreign police "pop in to say hello" is attributed to Ken Jennings. Three Google book sources repeat the phrase that "the police are of the Mountie variety". A Google book source from the University of British Columbia Press dated in 1975 calls the role an unofficial presence, but an editor in 2006 claims that Canadian judges in Stewart are paid by Alaska to handle misdemeanor cases under US law.
However, the second source you removed stated, "the police are of the Mountie variety". Your claim is that this statement, "didn't even talk about the subject", diff. Unscintillating ( talk) 12:15, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
They do, in fact use the RCMP and the Canadian courts. Through an Alaskan state provided supplement to their salaries, 2 judges in Stewart were educated in certain differences between Canadian constitutional law and American/AK state constitutional law. Civil law remains American as well, although this is not an issue, as the civil doctrine is identical in both countries- Preponderance of the evidence instead of reasonable doubt, Negligence, the reasoble person doctrine. Provided by agreement with the canadiens, Hyder misdemenor crimes are identical to Stewerts. Alaska state misdemenors do not exist in Stewert. A RCMP in Stewert is permitted to arrest US citizens in Hyder for misdemenor charges, and try them in Canadien courts. Felony charges, however are handled by State Troopers brought in, but arrest and holding is allowed to be done by RCMP officers while waiting for the trooper. It's a mix of both legal systems...-AKMask 18:12, 2 March 2006 (UTC)
I've a question about whether the website thegeektwins.com is or would be considered a reliable source, its used as the citation for a pop culture reference concerning the battleship USS Iowa (BB-61) appearing in a mockumentary ( the link to the specific webpage cited at geektwins). My every instinct is to pull the line out of the article on WP:WIAFA and WP:MILPOP grounds (which cover, broadly, WP:NOTTRIVIA), however I need a legitimate reason to do so. Right now, from an AGF standpoint, its one small line and one citation, so I haven't got solid grounds to pull out the line since it is referenced and in a mockumentary the ship could be considered a main character. That just leaves the reliable sources angle, so input from this request would help determine my next course of action. TomStar81 ( Talk) 04:48, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Appears to misuse reliable sources to make a specific claim of fact not found in either source, as far as I can tell. In fact, it appears to aver in Wikipedia's voice that Higham was an "assiduous researcher" even going so far as to state that those who call him anything else are liars ("belied").
In short, is the sentence acclaiming Higham's absolute veracity supported by the sources given and is the wording of the claim supported by reliable sources here? Collect ( talk) 12:41, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
At Carvedilol the external links section lists "Physicians Desk Reference Info on Carvedilol" with a link to [ http://www.drugs.com/pdr/carvedilol.html ], but that link redirects to [ https://www.drugs.com/mtm/carvedilol.html ]. Drugs.com explains the redirect at [ https://www.drugs.com/pdr/ ] which says that drugs.com no longer contains info from Physicians Desk Reference. I assume that [ https://www.drugs.com/mtm/ ], which refers to Multum Consumer Information, is also relevant.
Normally I would have simply updated the changed URL, but in this case the content of the ref has been changed, and the article now says things like "...it can block receptors that assist in opening the airways" that I assume were in the PDR info but are now not in the source cited.
And Wikipedia has over 1700 citations to drugs.com. :(
What to do? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 14:46, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Hi all,
This is about https://targetstudy.com/
This website is linked in a number of articles.
I question whether this is a reliable source for information about educational institutions in India.
It would appear to me that the assertion that the website is "a sincere attempt to provide its prospective users the most accurate and updated information about the course of study they are seeking" - is quite without any other verification.
What do you think about this?
Pete AU aka -- Shirt58 ( talk) 12:05, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Currently an article from Lifesitenews.com is being used as a source in the article Homosexuality and psychology (as source 4). I suspect this is not a reliable source but I wanted to seek the opinion of others on whether it is reliable or not before removing it. Everymorning (talk) 01:25, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I want to use this defunct website for the article James Dreyfus to verify the disputed content, now discussed at WP:BLPN. Is the website reliable? -- George Ho ( talk) 19:32, 3 August 2016 (UTC)