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 209 | Archive 210 | Archive 211 | Archive 212 | Archive 213 | → | Archive 215 |
We have a lengthy discussion underway at Talk:Hillary Clinton#Unsupported claim about subject never being charged with any crime. The central dispute is over the level of sourcing needed to support the claim in the article that the subject has, in fact, never been charged with a crime. There is, of course, no reliable source claiming that Clinton ever has been charged with a crime, but there are internet rumors floating around to this effect, and general statements of confusion on the subject. Some editors propose that Clinton may have, at some point, been charged with a crime in a state that doesn't divulge criminal charges to the media, and that such a hypothetical criminal charge has therefore remained secret.
In the discussion, I have provided three instances of published references stating this as a fact:
I grant that the latter two are opinion pieces; the first, I contend is a news article, although other editors dispute this because the author's job title is "editor" and the piece is written in a somewhat editorial tone. The question is, what level of sourcing/verification is needed to support the proposition that a person has not been charged with a crime, in the absence of any evidence of that person having ever been charged with a crime? bd2412 T 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
bd2412 says that there is a conspiracy theory that Clinton has been charged with a crime and the article should refute it. But unless the conspiracy theory has received coverage in the news, it should not be put into the article. And if it does attract significant attention, then we can add it to the article, along with the statement that it is false. Because an article about the conspiracy theory would say it is false. TFD ( talk) 00:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
which is why you got so much resistance about that.- Not really. That's been a relatively small part of the resistance, mostly from Dervorguilla if I'm not mistaken.
without saying how the investigation turned out. That part of the sentence has not been challenged to my knowledge, as least not in this particular debate. We are discussing "or any other controversy". (BTW, LEDECITE has no bearing on this question. It is about citing, not sourcing.) ― Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Tagged for citation needed per WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION and Template:Citation needed. AP story says she was charged with a minor offense (overparking) in 2013. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The disputed phrase does not say Clinton has never been charged with a crime, so that part of this discussion is a counterproductive distraction. It says she has never been charged with a crime in "any other controversy" (besides Whitewater). If someone here has documented the Hillary Clinton Parking Fine Controversy, I've missed that. A few news items do not constitute a controversy in my book. None of the words "parking", "ticket", or "fine" occur anywhere in Hillary Clinton. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 13:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The editor Calcoform added material to Harry's Place, a blog on a controversial subject (Middle East politics). He sourced these from two other minor blogs from the other side of the debate, Socialist Unity and Islamophobia Watch, to, in his own words, "correctly describe a much-criticised hate blog that is regularly used by anonymous contributors to defame named individuals". The material he added included that this blog "spread this virulent racism and Islamophobia" and "It is often used by anonymous contributors to circulate personal smears, defamatory attacks and Islamophobia". However good or bad this Harry's Place is, it does not strike me that the user is honestly attempting to be neutral on this subject. His comment on the talk page does not fill me with confidence either. These sources are only blogs, and blogs battle each other all the time. I want admins or reliable users to watch over this page and make sure that the sources are better. Calcoform's talk page shows that he has been spoken to and warned about his editing earlier this year and his contributions seem less than neutral and rather bellicose.
Examples:
They all say the same thing, always. I think they are all the same owner. They are clearly lousy sources and used all over the place at Wikipedia. Isn't this a BLP vio issue? Can we find out who owns these and if there are more? Should we remove them from this project?
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210#therichest.com
Cheers. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Each and every one of them is, IMO, wertlos as a source. It is "Wikischaden" that they are used in any articles whatsoever. Collect ( talk) 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I know Jalopnik is owned by Gawker Media. Gawker is not generally considered a reliable source, but may be used for opinions at times.
That said, I came across this article today: Orlove, Raphael (4 August 2016). "The Living Apostle Who Sold The Media On The Myth Of 'Ghana's First Car'". Jalopnik. Retrieved 4 August 2016.. It's written by Raphael Orlove, who is described as "staff editor for Jalopnik."
This article appears to be a work of investigative journalism the likes of which CNN and Al Jazera are unwilling to do. In it Kantanka cars are revealed to be not, as alleged elsewhere, "made in Ghana", but rather knock down kits from China. The author of the Jalopnik piece supports his assertions by citing photographic evidence of workers in Kantanka's plants who do not appear to know what they are doing, photographic evidence of the similarities of Kantanka's cars and the cars from the Chinese manufacturer, and a statement on the Chinese manufacturer's webpage that they provided the parts and factory and training to Kantanka; which is to say evidence that, were I to use it in Wikipedia, would be OR.
The article on Kantanka cars is currently quite short, and although not overtly promotional, it lacks balance.
Would other people consider this Jalopnik piece to be a reliable source for claiming that "doubt has been cast on the assertion that these cars are Ghana made, with evidence indicating that the cars may be knock down kits purchased from China?" ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 21:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a debate over whether The Daily Dot is a reliable source in this DRV of MonteCristo. Any outside opinions on the matter would be welcome.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is sponsored by Ethos. Want to get involved and help shape the future of Ethos? Head to www.ethos.gg and join the discussion, and back the Ethos Indiegogo campaign.I would be highly skeptical of sponsored articles like that. But this article would probably help to establish notability for the player. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Vision Forum is a religious organization that closed after its leader resigned in a scandal. The Vision Forum website used to host a lot of information, but it's now just a single web page with a few posts about the resignation. When it was up and functioning, one page on the site explained the basic tenets of something called Biblical patriarchy. That info is no longer on the page. But a Christian blog has posted a .pdf of the page, obtained through the Internet Archive's Way Back Machine. One editor replaced the no-longer-useful link with a link to the .pdf. Another deleted it, saying "blog sourced is the same as unsourced". So now we're back to using the old link, tagged as unverified. Here's the diff.
In my view, the .pdf source, as an archive of the original page, is reliable source for the tenets of Vision Forum. But I'm not sure enough of the matter to revert. Other opinions would be welcome. There's a thread on the Vision Forum talk page. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 16:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of the articles in Encyclopedia Britannica do not have specific authors (such as this one) and instead we see "Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica" under the title. Are those articles reliable? -- Mhhossein ( talk) 11:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this article from ESPN considered a reliable source or an op-ed?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 23:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors: I am working on a draft, Draft:Balelec Festival. A lot of the references that I am finding are from 24 heures and 20 minutes. Are these reliable independent sources? My French is not very good. I asked at Wikiproject Festivals, but received no reply.— Anne Delong ( talk) 07:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
In Suicide of Vince Foster#Allegations_of_cover-up_by_lead_investigator there are two sources to support a claim that concern me:
There appear to be no discussions of citizenwells.net in the noticeboard yet, but I presume I'm OK to assume it's not a reliable source? Autarch ( talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Count de Mauny uses this site [4] as a source for a number of claims. The actual source, however, appears to be "Count De Mauny: Friend of Royalty by Seweryn Chomet . Published by "Newman-Hemisphere".
That publisher appears to have published a total of two books [5] both by the same author. Is such a book (which I rather think is self-published, as most actual publishers do not issue a total of two books, each of them by the same author), a "reliable source" for the biography where it is used?
The prose in that biography appears a tad florid, but use of an SPS seems, to me, to be a problem here. Collect ( talk) 18:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song).
One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the author, not the website, to whom reliability applies.
Thanks in advance. — ATS 🖖 Talk 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This recent edit by
user:Aldebaran69 (at 22:04, 7 August 2016) introduced a retrospective inline citation to
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/stuart/stuart8.html to replace {{citation needed|date=August 2016|reason=ODNB does not list any of the children}}
, in
James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick.
I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V?
The edit also introduced a second retrospective citation to http://geneall.net/en/name/4480/james-fitzjames-1st-duke-of-berwick/ I don not think that http://geneall.net/en/ is reliable website. Does anyone think it is, and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V?
-- PBS ( talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the page David Packouz (tied with the War Dogs movie). There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not very long and discuss as to the best course of action. Specifically the first parageaph and the Beat Buddy section. I have also posted in Neutral noticeboard, as the page is not neutral at all. Thank you kindly. -- Asenathson ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if this site would be considered a reliable source that could help establish notability. The source in question is an interview, which I know some consider to be a primary source. However my main question is whether or not the site itself would be considered reliable. It gives off strong blog overtones and I don't see anything about an editorial process offhand. Their parent company, Mediavine doesn't outright say that it'll sell articles as part of a marketing package, but at times it gives off the impression that they might. This was previously brought up here, but there was never anything concretely said about the page.
My gut reaction is that it's like Perez Hilton, meaning that it's a tabloid type of blog site that we can't use as a RS. It's one of several questionable sources used in an AfC submission that I'm in the process of declining, so I thought that it'd be good to at least ask about this here in case it can be used. I do see where it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but then that's not automatically a guarantee that it's a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Walter Koenig includes an odd/ambiguous/confusing/probably-ungrammatical statement that "Koenig's parents were Russian Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union; his family lived in Lithuania when they emigrated" ("emigrated" to the United States? Koenig himself was apparently born in the US in 1936, before Lithuania was incorporated into the Soviet Union; were they originally from Russia and then moved to Lithuania and then moved to the US?).
I checked the source to see if it was clearer, and it led to an "Under construction. Coming soon." page. It seems just about every page of that "official" website is currently empty. It also looks ... well, not very official. It looks like a fan site, and the URL made me want to find out what was on WalterKoenig.com, which looks equally dodgy. Does the subject even have an official website?
More to the point, is there a way of verifying or falsifying my suspicion that these are both just fan-sites/domain-squatters posing as officially-endorsed sites?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are [ several pages] here that use TV Tropes for citations and as external links on a couple of pages (such as Chewbacca defense and space pirate).
I find that a bit worrying, seeing that it's a site that's mainly edited by non-experts. I've been editing there for years, and I've never heard of any notable writers or media experts editing there, meaning that there's likely a lot of misinformation on the site, especially with the light moderation (I spot errors on pretty much every page I visit on the site). There's also the problem that the content changes regularly, right down to pages being deleted outright. I was also under the impression that wikis shouldn't be used as sources anyway, unless the info is official in some way or related to the wiki itself. I know that user-edited sites like Metal Archives are never used, so it would be strange to allow a site with even lower moderation standards.
I'm wondering if such links should be removed, even if there are no other linked sources supporting a statement (the life partner page, for example, only has a TV Tropes link about it's portrayal in media). I'd be happy to remove those references myself if I get the go-ahead. SonOfPlisskin ( talk) 01:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
"doesn't seem to be a battle worth fighting"with a link to IAR, I don't think anyone necessarily needs to specifically look for all of the ELs to TVTropes and delete them all at once (unless they want to), but I don't think the attitude should be "it's fine, IAR" either. If I come across it as a source I'm going to tag it as {{ user-generated inline}} or delete it and tag it with {{ citation needed}}, depending on how contentious/dubious the statement is I guess, or if it's an in External links sections, I'm going to delete them with the edit summary " WP:ELNO: Not a reliable source", as I think other editors should when they come across it. —PermStrump (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The Template:Age of consent pages discussion header states (after clicking on "show"):
My concern is specifically with case law, which is in the form of the actual judicial opinions (ordinarily rendered by an appellate court), serving to clarify how specific statutes are to be interpreted.
My question is whether the judicial opinion may be cited in preference to an article in a mass media publication, presuming that the judicial opinion (at least if read carefully) can be interpreted without any specialized training? Or is the judicial opinion itself to be avoided because it's a primary source? Fabrickator ( talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
"Where writing about legislation or other law, the appropriate statutes and similar must be cited."(my emphasis). But as Fabrickator said, citing the actual legal code can be misleading, either because the wording might be ambiguous or because it differs in important ways from the case law, the actual authority for how the law is interpreted in the US (and plenty of other places, but I can't speak to them). I can think of a lot of potential issues with regularly citing the judicial opinion too though, like it might be hard for editors to determine the most recent, relevant case, especially when there's been more than one ruling about different aspects of the same legislation. Also, some precedents are still on the books that were set in the 1800s, which comes with its own host of problems.
There is a discussion, or rather close to an edit war, on Talk:Maya_(illusion) whether etymology of the Sanskrit word maya can be sourced to a sociology/philosophy book by some Pintchman. One editor, Ms Sarah Welch, keeps inserting the reference, arguing that since Pintchman is currently a professor and the book is published, it can be used on Wikipedia, and by removing the reference I "attack professors". [6] While I argue that Pintchman's book is on sociology - precisely, on certain religious concepts in Hinduism - and not on linguistics; Pintchman is a professor of religious studies who in her own admission [7] learned the Sanskrit language barely for 2.5 years; she only mentions the etymology en passant, when proposing a theory of a Hindu Goddess, in this WP:PRIMARY publication; and a reference to another book proposing this etymology (by Jan Gonda) is sufficient on Wikipedia. However, my argument seems to fall on deaf ears.
The discussion also takes place in a wider context, perhaps less relevant to this noticeboard, of existing teories on the etymology of the word maya (well, that's not a terribly wide context). Ms Sarah Welch keeps highlighting (not to say, promoting) original theories of religion by Jan Gonda (not a linguist, either - but in Hindu traditions, language and religion are strongly interconnected); whilst I try to present existing theories equally and list them in chronological order in the article. [8] Unfortunately, because anonther editor apparently totally unfanmiliar with the subject of Indian studies ( RexxS) has joined in doing reverts and attacking me, I decided to ask for a third opinion on sourcing. Thanks for any remarks you may have. — kashmiri TALK 06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Maya (illusion) currently has a section Etymology and terminology. The present article contains references to half-a-dozen different opinions on the etymology of the word. The sources include two books published by State University of New York Press and two published by Motilal Banarsidass, all of which Kashmiri is trying to remove from the article. The purpose of this notice board is to garner other opinions on whether a particular source is a reliable source in a given context. The source in question that opinions are sought on is:
for the statement "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology, probably comes from the root mā"
. So is it a
WP:Reliable source? according to
WP:NOR ("In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals; Books published by university presses; University-level textbooks; Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and Mainstream newspapers."), it is.
@ Only in death: If others also wish to offer their opinions of whether the source should be included or not, per WP:DUE, then please consider WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There are another three sources that also support Pintchman's view:
Quote: The word māyā comes from the same root mā, "to measure", as does mātra, "measure", which in turn is etymologically linked to the Latin materia, from which our word "matter" derives. Materia not only relates to mater, "mother" and to matrix, but also to metiri, "to measure, to lay out (a place)", (...)
I believe that anyone reading the current section Maya (illusion) #Etymology and terminology is "representing fairly, proportionately, and ... without editorial bias ... the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" as required by our policy. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The way this issue has been brought here leaves much to be desired. @ Kashmiri: you needed to read and follow the directions at the top. This is not a dispute resolution venue, but rather a venue to get opinions of uninvolved editors on sources. In particular, conduct issues do not concern us.
The only question that seems to concern this board is whether the Pintchman source should be included. I think there is no harm in including it, because it says that maya derives from ma (to measure) and so provides support for this derivation. This doesn't immediately clinch the issue, but it shows that this derivation has found favour among scholars. Whether Pintchman is a linguist or not doesn't matter much, because she is a secondary source here, and it is all the better if she is not a specialist.
More broadly, looking at this edit, the difference between the old and the new versions seems rather slight. So, I think that, if you discuss with cooler heads, you should be able to find agreement quite easily. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement.For the matter under discussion, the derivation of maya, it is a secondary source because Pintchman is not stating her own view, but rather the received view. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid the reliability of sources is not such a black-and-white issue. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and what we know about the expertise of the scholar, the context in which the statements appear, and the scholarly support provided for the statements etc. are also considerations. In this particular situation, the Pintchman source is scholarly and peer-reviewed. However, the author appears not to be a specialist in Sanskrit linguistics and no citations have been given for for the claim that maya derives from ma - "to measure". These considerations imply that the source cannot stand on its own, but can only be used in addition to the other sources, to tilt the balance a little bit in favour of this derivation against the others. But, on the whole, I don't think the balance in favour of this derivation is so great that it should be singled out as in the old version. I think Kashmiri's version is more balanced in this regard. (I also participate on the NPOV Noticeboard. So, I am switching hats slightly here.) Sanskrit, and perhaps other classical languages too, relish multiple meanings and sliding from one to the other. You may be looking for clarity where none is expected to be present. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this Brazilian social-science journal ([https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=pt-BR&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/ciencias_sociais/about&usg=ALkJrhgncx5hg7VoxNdJmSnXJabkDD2mug en]) generally reliable? It looks good, but I'd appreciate the opinion of an experienced RS evaluator or a Lusophone academic. It is [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-BR&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Frevistas.unisinos.br%2Findex.php%2Fciencias_sociais%2Fabout indexed] in EBSCO and ProQuest, among others, but has no JCR-assigned IF.
I'd like to use this systematic review in rewriting Psychology of eating meat, for which the review is excellently targeted. It was published only a few months ago and has no citations (in GScholar) yet, so to be sure of meeting WP:SCHOLARSHIP I'd like an opinion on the quality of the journal in general. Thanks! FourViolas ( talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
TeleSur is a Venezuelan state-run news agency usually identified as Bolivarian propaganda by scholars and media. (See, e.g., here (piece by Council on Foreign Relations international affairs fellow focused on Venezuela describing it as such). Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda").
Given all this, I do not think it is a properly reliable source for this (laudatory) statement about an individual. I welcome input. Neutrality talk 15:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I already know the answer here but wanted to get confirmation - is Inside Futures a reliable source? Specifically, this article, which I added as a reference on Larry Hite's page. Meatsgains ( talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I have cleaned up three or four articles using Prabook already but there are ca. 200 of them. Can I please have explicit confirmation that this is user-generated content and not reliable? If I get that then I may try to work out where to ask about a filter/blacklist for future attempted uses.
BTW, someone did raise this previously in relation to a specific article and, as on that occasion, I suspect Wikipedia scraping may have gone on in the examples that I have looked at so far. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 08:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
An administrator User:VictoriaGrayson has said that a video of Jill Stein speaking is not a reliable source for what Jill Stein actually said. Do you agree? She also seems to be arguing that a video of Jill Stein already referenced on the site via the blog "The World According to Matthew" is a reliable source embedded on that site but is not a reliable source when accessed directly. What do you think? Thank you for your time looking into this question in an effort to guarantee the impartiality of Wikipedia. The relevant discussion is in this Request for Comment SashiRolls ( talk) 22:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your responses snunɐɯ·, Aquillion, & TFD! In response to your call for more information, here is the sentence that was reverted:
I identified this as an independent source which is both a primary source regarding what Jill Stein said, and a secondary source given the comments of the interviewer (and Cenk Uygur at the end of the video), who both say that her statement is unequivocally clear. My use of her comment about the "birther" scandal seemed to fit the definition of appropriate use of a primary source given at Wikipedia... "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." It was added to the page because as it stands the page only includes articles stating that she has been ambiguous on this issue. What do you think? SashiRolls ( talk) 17:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Short: Is The Forbidden Knowledge a reliable source?
Long: There's an article on the Spaceship Moon Theory. It references an article in the July 1970 issue of Sputnik, effectively the Soviet Reader's Digest. I'm not questioning whether or not Sputnik is reliable, but believe that the reference used in the article is not reliable.
It's apparently a copy of the Sputnik article, hosted on an archive site that's take it from The Forbidden Knowledge. Things that interest TFK:
"This domain is dedicated to the teaching of knowledge that was hidden from the human race all through history."
"Freemasonry's connection to the creation of Mankind and his purpose"
"Luciferic power structure and Government center Washington D.C."
"Master numbers encoded within your DNA"
That's just from the home page; it gets worse when you open the site. I.e. it's about as fringe as it's possible to get. Therefore it's not a reliable source, and we simply can't rely on them to have accurately reproduced articles published elsewhere. Or that's what I think. You? Cheers, Bromley86 ( talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
So there I am, websurfing theforbiddenknowledge.com site and enjoying the articles about free energy, and suddenly I run into this... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Is World Statesmen.org reliable? I'd initially assumed not, but I have mixed feelings as I've used The Peerage before, and I can see similarities. Bromley86 ( talk) 09:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I need some help with some sources at an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacGyver the Lizard. I'm not asking for anyone to vote - that's not why I'm posting here. What I'm concerned about is that the sourcing is ultimately too weak to establish notability for this animal on social media. The non-primary sources in the article are either from a very narrow window of time (a 2-3 month period) or they're in places that are kind of dubious as far as Wikipedia is concerned. For example, the article relies on coverage from the Daily Mail and Vice to give notability, two sources that are shaky at best on Wikipedia. I know that I don't use them, as they've been known to make mistakes with articles, as their goal is more sensationalism and clicks than reporting the news. (Doesn't mean that I don't read both of them, but they're not really the best reliable sources.
Here's a rundown of the sourcing in the article at present, which I'm clipping from the AfD. On the AfD there's an argument that the sourcing should be enough and that one of the sources, Petcha, should be seen as reliable since an e-mail resulted in the person being told that they have an editorial staff - despite there being no mention of this on the website and the site apparently accepting user content.
Sourcing
|
---|
|
I just want to know some feedback on this - I know that this isn't a place for notability, but I do have to question whether or not this is ultimately enough and whether or not some of the sources are in-depth enough to be considered a non-trivial source. I also have some questions about FuzzFix, as the site doesn't have a lot about their editorial process and their company's about page (30M) seems to focus a lot on internet optimization. I get some pretty strong marketing vibes from them overall.
So what's your guy's take on some of the sources? Some of them are fine and reasonably in-depth, while others are pretty brief and others are kind of questionable as a source as a whole. The notability here is borderline, as the biggest argument against is that the coverage is WP:RECENTISM, but I don't know that all of the sourcing here is strong enough. There's an argument to be made that there needs to be a standard for social media personalities separate from ENTERTAINER or NWEB, but I don't know that these are enough to set precedent for a lower threshhold. Again, I know that this is not a place to argue notability, just trying to show where my mindset is coming from with this and I'd like some sort of opinion on the sourcing and whether or not some of them are long enough or some reliable enough to be used. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
According to the official USTA Colorado Facebook page, tennis player and coach Chet Murphy died a few months back at the age of 98. See: https://www.facebook.com/USTAColorado/photos/a.373100369408042.103755.165295046855243/1226993777352026/?type=3&theater Normally Facebook wouldn't be a reliable source, but given there are no other notices of his death on the web and the page is linked to the official organization, is there a consensus that we could have an exception in this case? Thanks -- Jkaharper ( talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Is being presented as a reliable source that historical figures were overtly homosexual.
Does not appear to me to be a reliable source for stating that any "minor figure" was such a notable homosexual.
[12] is an edit by the self-described writer of that book William_Benemann, using his own book as the source for the interesting material.
The query is whether the book by Mr. Benemann is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? It was published by a university press, but I find no reviews in mainstream media (no mentions at all in NYT, for example) other than the one cited, which appears to be quite dubious of the details about people it states are "minor figures". I posit that a book review of a book is not a reliable source for any claims of fact in any article.
Benemann is a major source for William Drummond Stewart, and the same historian is used for William North for the claim: "The historian William Benemann believes that North was romantically involved with Steuben and another male companion, Captain Benjamin Walker.[1] However, based on the limited historical record, Benemann wrote that "it is impossible to prove the nature of the relationships."[2]", Benjamin Walker (New York) "Historian William Benemann wrote "Steuben was also attracted to his 'angel' Benjamin Walker, but while Walker held the Baron in high esteem, he does not appear to have been sexually interested." Benemann also wrote, "Walker had no scruples about exploiting the Baron's sexual interest although he had no intention of reciprocating."[2]", Alfred d'Orsay "William Benemann in his book "Men of Paradise" is of the conclusion that there is evidence of a sexual relation between Alfred and both The Earl and the Countess" , Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben "It is here he met his reputed future lover, Captain Benjamin Walker. Upon meeting Walker for the first time he exclaimed "If I had seen an angel from Heaven I should not have more rejoiced." Within weeks, Walker was Steuben's aide-de-camp.[14]", and so on. All uses are attributed to that single author, and all involved claims of homosexuality not found in any other sources.
The reviews all note Benemann's assertion of homosexuality for many figures for whom he is the only source of such a claim. Where such a source is not backed by any other sources, is reliance on this person of undue weight in so many biographies?
Mr. Benemann is listed as an "archivist" by profession, and I find no other academic credentials for that person. [13] "Law-library archivist by vocation, independent historical scholar by avocation."
I suggest that while Benemann's work has won a Stonewall Book Award nonfiction selection, that is insufficient under WP:RS to rely so extensively on a single author for claims of fact. What is needed is additional authors making independent claims, as otherwise this seems to give great weight to one author's surmise out of many hundreds of biographies not making such surmise. Collect ( talk) 12:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Scholar.google.com
[14] shows almost no scholarly cites for Benemann's works.
[15] is Benemann citing Benemann for his own opinions, it seems.
Which show apparently a complete lack of familiarity of Henry Mayhew's works on life in Victorian London. (many references) inns having men, women and children sharing a single bed. In London. Which did not mean the men were gay. Collect ( talk) 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Special:Linksearch/*.beforeitsnews.com shows many articles using Before It's News as a source. Obviously this is an abject failure of WP:RS and it's not a surprise that some of the claims sourced there are paranoid conspiracist bullshit. Guy ( Help!) 15:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
In case you didn't know (which I didn't, even as a former blacklist regular), Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist now includes the ability to add sites to a reference revert list, so attempts to use a questionable source in a citation will be auto-reverted. Guy ( Help!) 16:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
How mainstream is the theories of Psychohistory? How reliable are writings of psychohistorians on the matters of history? Эйхер ( talk) 12:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
After a few minutes on Google I don't see any sign of anything that I'd regard as academically rigorous. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Do such claims, in turn, represent mainstream perception of Psychohistory? Эйхер ( talk) 15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems oversimplified and concentrates on the more amusingly batty ideas, but I'd guess that it does indeed represent mainstream perception of Psychohistory. In short, I'd regard psychohistorians are reliable on their own ideas but not on external reality. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be an activist website with a tendency to conspiracist ideation. It is used as a source in a large number of articles, including BLPs, with the cited sources often being polemical. I don't at first glance see any sign of proper editorial oversight or fact-checking. I suspect this is another "Before It;s News". What does t'committee think? Guy ( Help!) 21:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Is an academic dissertation (published independently, not in a peer-reviewed journal or anything) considered a reliable source? The source that provoked this question is this “dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy” from the University of Helsinki. It wasn’t self-published, but to me it feels a step removed from using some student’s test answers as a source for the tested subject. Or is that just me? Could just be me. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 02:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Published by Turre Publishing, a division of Turre Legal Ltd.), not the university. But it was printed in the university, if that matters. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 02:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Doctoral theses which have been accepted by a known institution have been "vetted" by "third parties." If they are cited by others, that makes them usable on Wikipedia, as it is easier to get an "article" cited by many others than to have a thesis cited by many others. At the 72 cite level, the thesis appears to be "noted". Cavils here appear ill-placed. Collect ( talk) 12:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP is pretty clear that dissertations generally aren't reliable. We might give slightly more credence to a PHD dissertation over a Master's thesis, but in both cases, they do not undergo true peer-review. Both are usually reviewed by a student's committee, but in many cases the advisor has the final say. Even with the committee, there can be a vested interest to get the student out with their degree as long as the work is good enough. It's actually a relatively common occurrence to have dissertation chapters submitted to journals rejected due to quality issues (had a few of these review requests cross my desk in the last months). This is all why we generally consider peer-review at a journal the minimum standard in cases like this. If a dissertation's work has not been published in a journal yet, that's a red flag. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Is an RfA page a reliable source to support the existence of an RfA?
Please comment at Talk:Justin Knapp#Still puzzled.
Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if #AskGaryVee, the You Tube show by Gary Vaynerchuk is usable as a notability giving source. I'm evaluating the sources for Draft:Book in a Box and some of them are problematic because they're primary or sort of squidgy, since they're not really in-depth or in places that don't make for the strongest sourcing.
My inclination is that it's not usable, as a brief look at his article shows that some of his major coverage has been for his wine blogging - which this is decidedly not. A cursory look for coverage about the series doesn't bring up a huge amount either. What's your take? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd previously thought that The Bookseller would be usable, but this gives off the strong impression that their spotlights can include articles written about them. What's your take on this? It's a little coy on what it does or doesn't offer. I'd like to assume that this site is still usable, but the marketing package page really bothers me. I'll ping DGG on this since he's pretty savvy with book related sourcing and if the place is considered unusable, he'd know.
Then I have Mixergy. It's an interview with the site founder, which is a little better than a random person, but the site doesn't have a whole lot about the editorial process and I'm also aware that a lot of people see interviews as primary. I'm also aware that Max is kind of known for embellishing his stories, so I know that this could impact the reliability of his interviews as well. All of that aside, what's your take on Mixergy? My gut instinct is that it's not usable.
These are both related to Draft:Book in a Box. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Is The Guardian considered a reliable source? SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Our article for Kassir, who is best known as the voice of the Crypt Keeper from the old Tales from the Crypt TV show, has seen a surprisingly contentious dispute over whether or not to include his birthdate. The conversation as it stands is essentially over with one editor feeling like his efforts are being treated too dismissively and consequently throwing a fit, one fit-throwing editor calming down, apologizing, and agreeing that the sources we have for Kassir's date of birth are weak, and one editor, an admin, requesting I come here.
If you're not interested in going down a hell of a rabbit-hole, no hard feelings. Feel free to stop reading.
WP:DOB says we shouldn't include people's birthdates if they haven't been widely published because of identity theft concerns, but it contains what appears to be an exception. DOB says: " Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." See how the second part of that sentence uses the word "sources" without the word "reliable" and its use is independent of the appearance of "reliable sources" in the first part of the sentence? Hold that thought.
This tweet has been retweeted twice, once by a Twitter account belonging to @JohnKassir. That account isn't verified by Twitter but it still contains enough footprints that I believe it's terribly obvious that it's actually him. I'm copying my own collection of evidence from Talk:John Kassir:
The tweet that @JohnKassir retweeted gave Kassir's date of birth as October 24, 1957, which exactly matches a ton of claims online made by database-ish sources that don't meet WP:RS or DOB standards. I believe the account's retweet establishes both this date's validity and that Kassir doesn't mind this information being disseminated. Of course, a non-verified Twitter account's retweet of another non-verified account doesn't meet RS, but I believe the language at DOB means this information can be included because the standard is lower. When I posted a big ol' wall of text at Kassir's talk, Ponyo still believed the claim should be left out. She says, and I agree, that it's "based on suppositions and WP:SYNTH" but she recommended I come here to firmly establish whether or not the standards for inclusion can be lowered per DOB and, if so, if this stuff is in compliance with these lowered standards. RunnyAmiga ( talk) 21:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to finally get some consensus as to the RSibility of Ballotpedia [21] since it's used in so many elections-related articles and I always have a high degree of trepidation citing it; there have been several discussions here that have resulted in no consensus. Is Ballotpedia RS for articles on United States elections?
The Daily Mirror is a British tabloid newspaper. It is at the better end of the scale for UK tabloids: the words are short and it's sensationalist and trivial, but it's not an outright fabricator as some are. They chose to scrape a little further down the popular outrage barrel and interviewed [25] a defence lawyer. I don't know if chequebooks were involved, but I doubt if this content would be available from any other source, other than indirectly through this same interview.
Is a UK tabloid, bound by UK laws on libel and reporting (which are onerous), an adequate source for comments from this interview?
I would claim that they are. The comment is relevant and of interest (in a somewhat prurient sense); it warrants inclusion. I do not find it credible that the content, a direct quote, even one used as the headline, would be inaccurately reported in a way that is a problem for our needs (I'm ignoring possible editorial paraphrasing as semantically unimportant). We do not like tabloids, but this is worth having, and it won't be coming from anywhere else. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I hope this is the right place to especially since it could also be placed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
1. Sources:
2. Article: Racism in South Korea
3. Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Racism_in_South_Korea&type=revision&diff=735208159&oldid=734967280
The issue is that article mostly lists single incidents that are not really notable to the topic since more general things should be stated.
There is a dispute about the use of webblogs and the notability of an event. More is stated on the Talk:Racism in South Korea#Reliability of Weblogs and you can see also some minor notes in the " history". It would be nice to get some more opinions since the article is mainly protected by one user. Maybe you can state your opinions on the use of webblogs like AsianCorrespondent and KoreaObserver on an article like this. Also, The article of the Atlanta Black Star is just an opinion piece by a "journalist" without any empirical method. Moreover, there is the issue that there was a bar owner in Seoul who set up a note at his bar that due to Ebola, he would not let in black people. He apologized four days later, said, it was due to his bad English skills and gave out some beer. I find this event highly insignificant for an article like this. It is as notable as a local murder. Maybe a bad comparison, but still, it should not be in this article.
Actually, I have more issues with the article which completely lacks any scientific approach. The article is basically build up on news reports. However, I think news reports are only legitimate for articles on current events, video games, films and persons. However, articles on racism and discrimination should follow sociological research. Moreover, in contrast to the United States, which has been a melting pot from the beginning, South Korea is a homogene state. So, research is apparently also just at a beginning stage, making knowledge based on news papers even more invalid, I think. Furthermore, I think when the article is named "racism in South Korea" it should follow the definition of Racism. Even, if an wikipedia author does evaluate events by herself/himself, it is original research. Nonetheless, the article also has a section Discrimination against North Korean defectors. In my opinion, racism and discrimination are not the same. Therefore, some could argue that this section does not belong in the article.
Conducting an article like "racism in South Korea" is much effort. Basically because it is not a textbook topic like let's say Product Innovation Charter, where you can find a basic theoretical introduction in books and get very specific literature from databases. So, my approach to start an article like this would be to search for international ranking/indexes that follow a scientific approach to get a country comparison. Than someone could look for literature reviews to get a hold of the state of art of and find some more articles on databases like Google Scholar or ScienceDirect. I cannot see how source articles can give any information on such a new, in regards of South Korea, and specific research field. -- Christian140 ( talk) 11:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Prior discussion involved the reliability of the proposed sources. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors: I came across this article, Dane Elkins which has a lot of sources, but it seems to me that many of them are not independent, published information. Two of the sources are Livestream videos. I know that generally YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources, particularly to demonstrate notability, because anyone can post there; is Livestream a similar situation? Or is it used by professional broadcasters? Should those references be removed from the article? I don't know anything about racquetball, and there is no WikiProject about it; I'll leave it to someone else to decide if winning a lot of junior tournaments makes this person a notable player.— Anne Delong ( talk) 14:17, 26 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 209 | Archive 210 | Archive 211 | Archive 212 | Archive 213 | → | Archive 215 |
We have a lengthy discussion underway at Talk:Hillary Clinton#Unsupported claim about subject never being charged with any crime. The central dispute is over the level of sourcing needed to support the claim in the article that the subject has, in fact, never been charged with a crime. There is, of course, no reliable source claiming that Clinton ever has been charged with a crime, but there are internet rumors floating around to this effect, and general statements of confusion on the subject. Some editors propose that Clinton may have, at some point, been charged with a crime in a state that doesn't divulge criminal charges to the media, and that such a hypothetical criminal charge has therefore remained secret.
In the discussion, I have provided three instances of published references stating this as a fact:
I grant that the latter two are opinion pieces; the first, I contend is a news article, although other editors dispute this because the author's job title is "editor" and the piece is written in a somewhat editorial tone. The question is, what level of sourcing/verification is needed to support the proposition that a person has not been charged with a crime, in the absence of any evidence of that person having ever been charged with a crime? bd2412 T 20:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
bd2412 says that there is a conspiracy theory that Clinton has been charged with a crime and the article should refute it. But unless the conspiracy theory has received coverage in the news, it should not be put into the article. And if it does attract significant attention, then we can add it to the article, along with the statement that it is false. Because an article about the conspiracy theory would say it is false. TFD ( talk) 00:19, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
which is why you got so much resistance about that.- Not really. That's been a relatively small part of the resistance, mostly from Dervorguilla if I'm not mistaken.
without saying how the investigation turned out. That part of the sentence has not been challenged to my knowledge, as least not in this particular debate. We are discussing "or any other controversy". (BTW, LEDECITE has no bearing on this question. It is about citing, not sourcing.) ― Mandruss ☎ 16:11, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
Tagged for citation needed per WP:FAILEDVERIFICATION and Template:Citation needed. AP story says she was charged with a minor offense (overparking) in 2013. -- Dervorguilla ( talk) 04:31, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
The disputed phrase does not say Clinton has never been charged with a crime, so that part of this discussion is a counterproductive distraction. It says she has never been charged with a crime in "any other controversy" (besides Whitewater). If someone here has documented the Hillary Clinton Parking Fine Controversy, I've missed that. A few news items do not constitute a controversy in my book. None of the words "parking", "ticket", or "fine" occur anywhere in Hillary Clinton. ― Mandruss ☎ 18:16, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
Nergaal ( talk) 13:33, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
The editor Calcoform added material to Harry's Place, a blog on a controversial subject (Middle East politics). He sourced these from two other minor blogs from the other side of the debate, Socialist Unity and Islamophobia Watch, to, in his own words, "correctly describe a much-criticised hate blog that is regularly used by anonymous contributors to defame named individuals". The material he added included that this blog "spread this virulent racism and Islamophobia" and "It is often used by anonymous contributors to circulate personal smears, defamatory attacks and Islamophobia". However good or bad this Harry's Place is, it does not strike me that the user is honestly attempting to be neutral on this subject. His comment on the talk page does not fill me with confidence either. These sources are only blogs, and blogs battle each other all the time. I want admins or reliable users to watch over this page and make sure that the sources are better. Calcoform's talk page shows that he has been spoken to and warned about his editing earlier this year and his contributions seem less than neutral and rather bellicose.
Examples:
They all say the same thing, always. I think they are all the same owner. They are clearly lousy sources and used all over the place at Wikipedia. Isn't this a BLP vio issue? Can we find out who owns these and if there are more? Should we remove them from this project?
See also Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 210#therichest.com
Cheers. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 00:29, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Each and every one of them is, IMO, wertlos as a source. It is "Wikischaden" that they are used in any articles whatsoever. Collect ( talk) 15:27, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I know Jalopnik is owned by Gawker Media. Gawker is not generally considered a reliable source, but may be used for opinions at times.
That said, I came across this article today: Orlove, Raphael (4 August 2016). "The Living Apostle Who Sold The Media On The Myth Of 'Ghana's First Car'". Jalopnik. Retrieved 4 August 2016.. It's written by Raphael Orlove, who is described as "staff editor for Jalopnik."
This article appears to be a work of investigative journalism the likes of which CNN and Al Jazera are unwilling to do. In it Kantanka cars are revealed to be not, as alleged elsewhere, "made in Ghana", but rather knock down kits from China. The author of the Jalopnik piece supports his assertions by citing photographic evidence of workers in Kantanka's plants who do not appear to know what they are doing, photographic evidence of the similarities of Kantanka's cars and the cars from the Chinese manufacturer, and a statement on the Chinese manufacturer's webpage that they provided the parts and factory and training to Kantanka; which is to say evidence that, were I to use it in Wikipedia, would be OR.
The article on Kantanka cars is currently quite short, and although not overtly promotional, it lacks balance.
Would other people consider this Jalopnik piece to be a reliable source for claiming that "doubt has been cast on the assertion that these cars are Ghana made, with evidence indicating that the cars may be knock down kits purchased from China?" ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 21:28, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
There's a debate over whether The Daily Dot is a reliable source in this DRV of MonteCristo. Any outside opinions on the matter would be welcome.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 03:38, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
This article is sponsored by Ethos. Want to get involved and help shape the future of Ethos? Head to www.ethos.gg and join the discussion, and back the Ethos Indiegogo campaign.I would be highly skeptical of sponsored articles like that. But this article would probably help to establish notability for the player. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 15:53, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Vision Forum is a religious organization that closed after its leader resigned in a scandal. The Vision Forum website used to host a lot of information, but it's now just a single web page with a few posts about the resignation. When it was up and functioning, one page on the site explained the basic tenets of something called Biblical patriarchy. That info is no longer on the page. But a Christian blog has posted a .pdf of the page, obtained through the Internet Archive's Way Back Machine. One editor replaced the no-longer-useful link with a link to the .pdf. Another deleted it, saying "blog sourced is the same as unsourced". So now we're back to using the old link, tagged as unverified. Here's the diff.
In my view, the .pdf source, as an archive of the original page, is reliable source for the tenets of Vision Forum. But I'm not sure enough of the matter to revert. Other opinions would be welcome. There's a thread on the Vision Forum talk page. Thanks. David in DC ( talk) 16:19, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Some of the articles in Encyclopedia Britannica do not have specific authors (such as this one) and instead we see "Written by: The Editors of Encyclopædia Britannica" under the title. Are those articles reliable? -- Mhhossein ( talk) 11:41, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this article from ESPN considered a reliable source or an op-ed?-- Prisencolin ( talk) 23:55, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors: I am working on a draft, Draft:Balelec Festival. A lot of the references that I am finding are from 24 heures and 20 minutes. Are these reliable independent sources? My French is not very good. I asked at Wikiproject Festivals, but received no reply.— Anne Delong ( talk) 07:59, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
In Suicide of Vince Foster#Allegations_of_cover-up_by_lead_investigator there are two sources to support a claim that concern me:
There appear to be no discussions of citizenwells.net in the noticeboard yet, but I presume I'm OK to assume it's not a reliable source? Autarch ( talk) 21:37, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
Count de Mauny uses this site [4] as a source for a number of claims. The actual source, however, appears to be "Count De Mauny: Friend of Royalty by Seweryn Chomet . Published by "Newman-Hemisphere".
That publisher appears to have published a total of two books [5] both by the same author. Is such a book (which I rather think is self-published, as most actual publishers do not issue a total of two books, each of them by the same author), a "reliable source" for the biography where it is used?
The prose in that biography appears a tad florid, but use of an SPS seems, to me, to be a problem here. Collect ( talk) 18:05, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate input on a discussion at Talk:Blink of an Eye (Tori Kelly song).
One editor says PopCrush is not reliable. The other says it's the author, not the website, to whom reliability applies.
Thanks in advance. — ATS 🖖 Talk 18:59, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
This recent edit by
user:Aldebaran69 (at 22:04, 7 August 2016) introduced a retrospective inline citation to
http://genealogy.euweb.cz/stuart/stuart8.html to replace {{citation needed|date=August 2016|reason=ODNB does not list any of the children}}
, in
James FitzJames, 1st Duke of Berwick.
I do not think http://genealogy.euweb.cz/ is a reliable source. Does anyone think that it is and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V?
The edit also introduced a second retrospective citation to http://geneall.net/en/name/4480/james-fitzjames-1st-duke-of-berwick/ I don not think that http://geneall.net/en/ is reliable website. Does anyone think it is, and if so how does it meet the requirements of WP:V?
-- PBS ( talk) 19:05, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Concerning the page David Packouz (tied with the War Dogs movie). There have been some recent edits to Mr Packouz's page that are extremely disturbing, and the page is becoming very self-promotional. The page for this individual is also poorly written, as general. The sources also do not claim what they say they do - for instance, see source [1], which does not mention "entrepreneur" nor "inventor". Source [9] does not mention music technology. The entire article reads like an advertisement. Please read through the page which is not very long and discuss as to the best course of action. Specifically the first parageaph and the Beat Buddy section. I have also posted in Neutral noticeboard, as the page is not neutral at all. Thank you kindly. -- Asenathson ( talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if this site would be considered a reliable source that could help establish notability. The source in question is an interview, which I know some consider to be a primary source. However my main question is whether or not the site itself would be considered reliable. It gives off strong blog overtones and I don't see anything about an editorial process offhand. Their parent company, Mediavine doesn't outright say that it'll sell articles as part of a marketing package, but at times it gives off the impression that they might. This was previously brought up here, but there was never anything concretely said about the page.
My gut reaction is that it's like Perez Hilton, meaning that it's a tabloid type of blog site that we can't use as a RS. It's one of several questionable sources used in an AfC submission that I'm in the process of declining, so I thought that it'd be good to at least ask about this here in case it can be used. I do see where it's used elsewhere on Wikipedia, but then that's not automatically a guarantee that it's a reliable source. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 05:57, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Walter Koenig includes an odd/ambiguous/confusing/probably-ungrammatical statement that "Koenig's parents were Russian Jewish immigrants from the Soviet Union; his family lived in Lithuania when they emigrated" ("emigrated" to the United States? Koenig himself was apparently born in the US in 1936, before Lithuania was incorporated into the Soviet Union; were they originally from Russia and then moved to Lithuania and then moved to the US?).
I checked the source to see if it was clearer, and it led to an "Under construction. Coming soon." page. It seems just about every page of that "official" website is currently empty. It also looks ... well, not very official. It looks like a fan site, and the URL made me want to find out what was on WalterKoenig.com, which looks equally dodgy. Does the subject even have an official website?
More to the point, is there a way of verifying or falsifying my suspicion that these are both just fan-sites/domain-squatters posing as officially-endorsed sites?
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:35, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
I've noticed that there are [ several pages] here that use TV Tropes for citations and as external links on a couple of pages (such as Chewbacca defense and space pirate).
I find that a bit worrying, seeing that it's a site that's mainly edited by non-experts. I've been editing there for years, and I've never heard of any notable writers or media experts editing there, meaning that there's likely a lot of misinformation on the site, especially with the light moderation (I spot errors on pretty much every page I visit on the site). There's also the problem that the content changes regularly, right down to pages being deleted outright. I was also under the impression that wikis shouldn't be used as sources anyway, unless the info is official in some way or related to the wiki itself. I know that user-edited sites like Metal Archives are never used, so it would be strange to allow a site with even lower moderation standards.
I'm wondering if such links should be removed, even if there are no other linked sources supporting a statement (the life partner page, for example, only has a TV Tropes link about it's portrayal in media). I'd be happy to remove those references myself if I get the go-ahead. SonOfPlisskin ( talk) 01:18, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
"doesn't seem to be a battle worth fighting"with a link to IAR, I don't think anyone necessarily needs to specifically look for all of the ELs to TVTropes and delete them all at once (unless they want to), but I don't think the attitude should be "it's fine, IAR" either. If I come across it as a source I'm going to tag it as {{ user-generated inline}} or delete it and tag it with {{ citation needed}}, depending on how contentious/dubious the statement is I guess, or if it's an in External links sections, I'm going to delete them with the edit summary " WP:ELNO: Not a reliable source", as I think other editors should when they come across it. —PermStrump (talk) 17:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
The Template:Age of consent pages discussion header states (after clicking on "show"):
My concern is specifically with case law, which is in the form of the actual judicial opinions (ordinarily rendered by an appellate court), serving to clarify how specific statutes are to be interpreted.
My question is whether the judicial opinion may be cited in preference to an article in a mass media publication, presuming that the judicial opinion (at least if read carefully) can be interpreted without any specialized training? Or is the judicial opinion itself to be avoided because it's a primary source? Fabrickator ( talk) 14:07, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
"Where writing about legislation or other law, the appropriate statutes and similar must be cited."(my emphasis). But as Fabrickator said, citing the actual legal code can be misleading, either because the wording might be ambiguous or because it differs in important ways from the case law, the actual authority for how the law is interpreted in the US (and plenty of other places, but I can't speak to them). I can think of a lot of potential issues with regularly citing the judicial opinion too though, like it might be hard for editors to determine the most recent, relevant case, especially when there's been more than one ruling about different aspects of the same legislation. Also, some precedents are still on the books that were set in the 1800s, which comes with its own host of problems.
There is a discussion, or rather close to an edit war, on Talk:Maya_(illusion) whether etymology of the Sanskrit word maya can be sourced to a sociology/philosophy book by some Pintchman. One editor, Ms Sarah Welch, keeps inserting the reference, arguing that since Pintchman is currently a professor and the book is published, it can be used on Wikipedia, and by removing the reference I "attack professors". [6] While I argue that Pintchman's book is on sociology - precisely, on certain religious concepts in Hinduism - and not on linguistics; Pintchman is a professor of religious studies who in her own admission [7] learned the Sanskrit language barely for 2.5 years; she only mentions the etymology en passant, when proposing a theory of a Hindu Goddess, in this WP:PRIMARY publication; and a reference to another book proposing this etymology (by Jan Gonda) is sufficient on Wikipedia. However, my argument seems to fall on deaf ears.
The discussion also takes place in a wider context, perhaps less relevant to this noticeboard, of existing teories on the etymology of the word maya (well, that's not a terribly wide context). Ms Sarah Welch keeps highlighting (not to say, promoting) original theories of religion by Jan Gonda (not a linguist, either - but in Hindu traditions, language and religion are strongly interconnected); whilst I try to present existing theories equally and list them in chronological order in the article. [8] Unfortunately, because anonther editor apparently totally unfanmiliar with the subject of Indian studies ( RexxS) has joined in doing reverts and attacking me, I decided to ask for a third opinion on sourcing. Thanks for any remarks you may have. — kashmiri TALK 06:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The article Maya (illusion) currently has a section Etymology and terminology. The present article contains references to half-a-dozen different opinions on the etymology of the word. The sources include two books published by State University of New York Press and two published by Motilal Banarsidass, all of which Kashmiri is trying to remove from the article. The purpose of this notice board is to garner other opinions on whether a particular source is a reliable source in a given context. The source in question that opinions are sought on is:
for the statement "Māyā (Sanskrit: माया) is a word with unclear etymology, probably comes from the root mā"
. So is it a
WP:Reliable source? according to
WP:NOR ("In general, the most reliable sources are: Peer-reviewed journals; Books published by university presses; University-level textbooks; Magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and Mainstream newspapers."), it is.
@ Only in death: If others also wish to offer their opinions of whether the source should be included or not, per WP:DUE, then please consider WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." There are another three sources that also support Pintchman's view:
Quote: The word māyā comes from the same root mā, "to measure", as does mātra, "measure", which in turn is etymologically linked to the Latin materia, from which our word "matter" derives. Materia not only relates to mater, "mother" and to matrix, but also to metiri, "to measure, to lay out (a place)", (...)
I believe that anyone reading the current section Maya (illusion) #Etymology and terminology is "representing fairly, proportionately, and ... without editorial bias ... the significant views that have been published by reliable sources" as required by our policy. -- RexxS ( talk) 15:11, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The way this issue has been brought here leaves much to be desired. @ Kashmiri: you needed to read and follow the directions at the top. This is not a dispute resolution venue, but rather a venue to get opinions of uninvolved editors on sources. In particular, conduct issues do not concern us.
The only question that seems to concern this board is whether the Pintchman source should be included. I think there is no harm in including it, because it says that maya derives from ma (to measure) and so provides support for this derivation. This doesn't immediately clinch the issue, but it shows that this derivation has found favour among scholars. Whether Pintchman is a linguist or not doesn't matter much, because she is a secondary source here, and it is all the better if she is not a specialist.
More broadly, looking at this edit, the difference between the old and the new versions seems rather slight. So, I think that, if you discuss with cooler heads, you should be able to find agreement quite easily. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 21:34, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
A source may be considered primary for one statement but secondary for a different one, and sources can contain both primary and secondary source material for the same statement.For the matter under discussion, the derivation of maya, it is a secondary source because Pintchman is not stating her own view, but rather the received view. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 22:39, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I am afraid the reliability of sources is not such a black-and-white issue. WP:CONTEXTMATTERS and what we know about the expertise of the scholar, the context in which the statements appear, and the scholarly support provided for the statements etc. are also considerations. In this particular situation, the Pintchman source is scholarly and peer-reviewed. However, the author appears not to be a specialist in Sanskrit linguistics and no citations have been given for for the claim that maya derives from ma - "to measure". These considerations imply that the source cannot stand on its own, but can only be used in addition to the other sources, to tilt the balance a little bit in favour of this derivation against the others. But, on the whole, I don't think the balance in favour of this derivation is so great that it should be singled out as in the old version. I think Kashmiri's version is more balanced in this regard. (I also participate on the NPOV Noticeboard. So, I am switching hats slightly here.) Sanskrit, and perhaps other classical languages too, relish multiple meanings and sliding from one to the other. You may be looking for clarity where none is expected to be present. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 10:43, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
Is this Brazilian social-science journal ([https://translate.googleusercontent.com/translate_c?depth=1&hl=pt-BR&rurl=translate.google.com&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http://revistas.unisinos.br/index.php/ciencias_sociais/about&usg=ALkJrhgncx5hg7VoxNdJmSnXJabkDD2mug en]) generally reliable? It looks good, but I'd appreciate the opinion of an experienced RS evaluator or a Lusophone academic. It is [https://translate.google.com/translate?hl=pt-BR&sl=auto&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Frevistas.unisinos.br%2Findex.php%2Fciencias_sociais%2Fabout indexed] in EBSCO and ProQuest, among others, but has no JCR-assigned IF.
I'd like to use this systematic review in rewriting Psychology of eating meat, for which the review is excellently targeted. It was published only a few months ago and has no citations (in GScholar) yet, so to be sure of meeting WP:SCHOLARSHIP I'd like an opinion on the quality of the journal in general. Thanks! FourViolas ( talk) 02:10, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
TeleSur is a Venezuelan state-run news agency usually identified as Bolivarian propaganda by scholars and media. (See, e.g., here (piece by Council on Foreign Relations international affairs fellow focused on Venezuela describing it as such). Even those sympathetic to the Venezuelan government identify it as such (see, e.g., p. 29 of this book in which Nikolas Kozloff quotes Gregory Wilpert as saying that Telesur has a "widely-acknowledged reputation for being a vehicle for Chávez-funded propaganda").
Given all this, I do not think it is a properly reliable source for this (laudatory) statement about an individual. I welcome input. Neutrality talk 15:01, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
I think I already know the answer here but wanted to get confirmation - is Inside Futures a reliable source? Specifically, this article, which I added as a reference on Larry Hite's page. Meatsgains ( talk) 00:18, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I have cleaned up three or four articles using Prabook already but there are ca. 200 of them. Can I please have explicit confirmation that this is user-generated content and not reliable? If I get that then I may try to work out where to ask about a filter/blacklist for future attempted uses.
BTW, someone did raise this previously in relation to a specific article and, as on that occasion, I suspect Wikipedia scraping may have gone on in the examples that I have looked at so far. Thanks. - Sitush ( talk) 08:33, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
An administrator User:VictoriaGrayson has said that a video of Jill Stein speaking is not a reliable source for what Jill Stein actually said. Do you agree? She also seems to be arguing that a video of Jill Stein already referenced on the site via the blog "The World According to Matthew" is a reliable source embedded on that site but is not a reliable source when accessed directly. What do you think? Thank you for your time looking into this question in an effort to guarantee the impartiality of Wikipedia. The relevant discussion is in this Request for Comment SashiRolls ( talk) 22:47, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your responses snunɐɯ·, Aquillion, & TFD! In response to your call for more information, here is the sentence that was reverted:
I identified this as an independent source which is both a primary source regarding what Jill Stein said, and a secondary source given the comments of the interviewer (and Cenk Uygur at the end of the video), who both say that her statement is unequivocally clear. My use of her comment about the "birther" scandal seemed to fit the definition of appropriate use of a primary source given at Wikipedia... "Primary sources may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements that any educated person—with access to the source but without specialist knowledge—will be able to verify are directly supported by the source." It was added to the page because as it stands the page only includes articles stating that she has been ambiguous on this issue. What do you think? SashiRolls ( talk) 17:38, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
References
Short: Is The Forbidden Knowledge a reliable source?
Long: There's an article on the Spaceship Moon Theory. It references an article in the July 1970 issue of Sputnik, effectively the Soviet Reader's Digest. I'm not questioning whether or not Sputnik is reliable, but believe that the reference used in the article is not reliable.
It's apparently a copy of the Sputnik article, hosted on an archive site that's take it from The Forbidden Knowledge. Things that interest TFK:
"This domain is dedicated to the teaching of knowledge that was hidden from the human race all through history."
"Freemasonry's connection to the creation of Mankind and his purpose"
"Luciferic power structure and Government center Washington D.C."
"Master numbers encoded within your DNA"
That's just from the home page; it gets worse when you open the site. I.e. it's about as fringe as it's possible to get. Therefore it's not a reliable source, and we simply can't rely on them to have accurately reproduced articles published elsewhere. Or that's what I think. You? Cheers, Bromley86 ( talk) 21:39, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
So there I am, websurfing theforbiddenknowledge.com site and enjoying the articles about free energy, and suddenly I run into this... -- Guy Macon ( talk) 02:50, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Is World Statesmen.org reliable? I'd initially assumed not, but I have mixed feelings as I've used The Peerage before, and I can see similarities. Bromley86 ( talk) 09:37, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
I need some help with some sources at an AfD, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/MacGyver the Lizard. I'm not asking for anyone to vote - that's not why I'm posting here. What I'm concerned about is that the sourcing is ultimately too weak to establish notability for this animal on social media. The non-primary sources in the article are either from a very narrow window of time (a 2-3 month period) or they're in places that are kind of dubious as far as Wikipedia is concerned. For example, the article relies on coverage from the Daily Mail and Vice to give notability, two sources that are shaky at best on Wikipedia. I know that I don't use them, as they've been known to make mistakes with articles, as their goal is more sensationalism and clicks than reporting the news. (Doesn't mean that I don't read both of them, but they're not really the best reliable sources.
Here's a rundown of the sourcing in the article at present, which I'm clipping from the AfD. On the AfD there's an argument that the sourcing should be enough and that one of the sources, Petcha, should be seen as reliable since an e-mail resulted in the person being told that they have an editorial staff - despite there being no mention of this on the website and the site apparently accepting user content.
Sourcing
|
---|
|
I just want to know some feedback on this - I know that this isn't a place for notability, but I do have to question whether or not this is ultimately enough and whether or not some of the sources are in-depth enough to be considered a non-trivial source. I also have some questions about FuzzFix, as the site doesn't have a lot about their editorial process and their company's about page (30M) seems to focus a lot on internet optimization. I get some pretty strong marketing vibes from them overall.
So what's your guy's take on some of the sources? Some of them are fine and reasonably in-depth, while others are pretty brief and others are kind of questionable as a source as a whole. The notability here is borderline, as the biggest argument against is that the coverage is WP:RECENTISM, but I don't know that all of the sourcing here is strong enough. There's an argument to be made that there needs to be a standard for social media personalities separate from ENTERTAINER or NWEB, but I don't know that these are enough to set precedent for a lower threshhold. Again, I know that this is not a place to argue notability, just trying to show where my mindset is coming from with this and I'd like some sort of opinion on the sourcing and whether or not some of them are long enough or some reliable enough to be used. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 03:43, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
According to the official USTA Colorado Facebook page, tennis player and coach Chet Murphy died a few months back at the age of 98. See: https://www.facebook.com/USTAColorado/photos/a.373100369408042.103755.165295046855243/1226993777352026/?type=3&theater Normally Facebook wouldn't be a reliable source, but given there are no other notices of his death on the web and the page is linked to the official organization, is there a consensus that we could have an exception in this case? Thanks -- Jkaharper ( talk) 14:40, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Is being presented as a reliable source that historical figures were overtly homosexual.
Does not appear to me to be a reliable source for stating that any "minor figure" was such a notable homosexual.
[12] is an edit by the self-described writer of that book William_Benemann, using his own book as the source for the interesting material.
The query is whether the book by Mr. Benemann is a reliable source by Wikipedia standards? It was published by a university press, but I find no reviews in mainstream media (no mentions at all in NYT, for example) other than the one cited, which appears to be quite dubious of the details about people it states are "minor figures". I posit that a book review of a book is not a reliable source for any claims of fact in any article.
Benemann is a major source for William Drummond Stewart, and the same historian is used for William North for the claim: "The historian William Benemann believes that North was romantically involved with Steuben and another male companion, Captain Benjamin Walker.[1] However, based on the limited historical record, Benemann wrote that "it is impossible to prove the nature of the relationships."[2]", Benjamin Walker (New York) "Historian William Benemann wrote "Steuben was also attracted to his 'angel' Benjamin Walker, but while Walker held the Baron in high esteem, he does not appear to have been sexually interested." Benemann also wrote, "Walker had no scruples about exploiting the Baron's sexual interest although he had no intention of reciprocating."[2]", Alfred d'Orsay "William Benemann in his book "Men of Paradise" is of the conclusion that there is evidence of a sexual relation between Alfred and both The Earl and the Countess" , Friedrich Wilhelm von Steuben "It is here he met his reputed future lover, Captain Benjamin Walker. Upon meeting Walker for the first time he exclaimed "If I had seen an angel from Heaven I should not have more rejoiced." Within weeks, Walker was Steuben's aide-de-camp.[14]", and so on. All uses are attributed to that single author, and all involved claims of homosexuality not found in any other sources.
The reviews all note Benemann's assertion of homosexuality for many figures for whom he is the only source of such a claim. Where such a source is not backed by any other sources, is reliance on this person of undue weight in so many biographies?
Mr. Benemann is listed as an "archivist" by profession, and I find no other academic credentials for that person. [13] "Law-library archivist by vocation, independent historical scholar by avocation."
I suggest that while Benemann's work has won a Stonewall Book Award nonfiction selection, that is insufficient under WP:RS to rely so extensively on a single author for claims of fact. What is needed is additional authors making independent claims, as otherwise this seems to give great weight to one author's surmise out of many hundreds of biographies not making such surmise. Collect ( talk) 12:57, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Scholar.google.com
[14] shows almost no scholarly cites for Benemann's works.
[15] is Benemann citing Benemann for his own opinions, it seems.
Which show apparently a complete lack of familiarity of Henry Mayhew's works on life in Victorian London. (many references) inns having men, women and children sharing a single bed. In London. Which did not mean the men were gay. Collect ( talk) 14:35, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
Special:Linksearch/*.beforeitsnews.com shows many articles using Before It's News as a source. Obviously this is an abject failure of WP:RS and it's not a surprise that some of the claims sourced there are paranoid conspiracist bullshit. Guy ( Help!) 15:21, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
In case you didn't know (which I didn't, even as a former blacklist regular), Mediawiki talk:Spam-blacklist now includes the ability to add sites to a reference revert list, so attempts to use a questionable source in a citation will be auto-reverted. Guy ( Help!) 16:07, 19 August 2016 (UTC)
How mainstream is the theories of Psychohistory? How reliable are writings of psychohistorians on the matters of history? Эйхер ( talk) 12:25, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
After a few minutes on Google I don't see any sign of anything that I'd regard as academically rigorous. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
Do such claims, in turn, represent mainstream perception of Psychohistory? Эйхер ( talk) 15:03, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
It seems oversimplified and concentrates on the more amusingly batty ideas, but I'd guess that it does indeed represent mainstream perception of Psychohistory. In short, I'd regard psychohistorians are reliable on their own ideas but not on external reality. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be an activist website with a tendency to conspiracist ideation. It is used as a source in a large number of articles, including BLPs, with the cited sources often being polemical. I don't at first glance see any sign of proper editorial oversight or fact-checking. I suspect this is another "Before It;s News". What does t'committee think? Guy ( Help!) 21:59, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Is an academic dissertation (published independently, not in a peer-reviewed journal or anything) considered a reliable source? The source that provoked this question is this “dissertation for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy” from the University of Helsinki. It wasn’t self-published, but to me it feels a step removed from using some student’s test answers as a source for the tested subject. Or is that just me? Could just be me. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 02:36, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Published by Turre Publishing, a division of Turre Legal Ltd.), not the university. But it was printed in the university, if that matters. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 02:50, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
Doctoral theses which have been accepted by a known institution have been "vetted" by "third parties." If they are cited by others, that makes them usable on Wikipedia, as it is easier to get an "article" cited by many others than to have a thesis cited by many others. At the 72 cite level, the thesis appears to be "noted". Cavils here appear ill-placed. Collect ( talk) 12:57, 16 August 2016 (UTC)
WP:SCHOLARSHIP is pretty clear that dissertations generally aren't reliable. We might give slightly more credence to a PHD dissertation over a Master's thesis, but in both cases, they do not undergo true peer-review. Both are usually reviewed by a student's committee, but in many cases the advisor has the final say. Even with the committee, there can be a vested interest to get the student out with their degree as long as the work is good enough. It's actually a relatively common occurrence to have dissertation chapters submitted to journals rejected due to quality issues (had a few of these review requests cross my desk in the last months). This is all why we generally consider peer-review at a journal the minimum standard in cases like this. If a dissertation's work has not been published in a journal yet, that's a red flag. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 02:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
Is an RfA page a reliable source to support the existence of an RfA?
Please comment at Talk:Justin Knapp#Still puzzled.
Thanks. Anna Frodesiak ( talk) 23:46, 20 August 2016 (UTC)
Hey, I was wondering if #AskGaryVee, the You Tube show by Gary Vaynerchuk is usable as a notability giving source. I'm evaluating the sources for Draft:Book in a Box and some of them are problematic because they're primary or sort of squidgy, since they're not really in-depth or in places that don't make for the strongest sourcing.
My inclination is that it's not usable, as a brief look at his article shows that some of his major coverage has been for his wine blogging - which this is decidedly not. A cursory look for coverage about the series doesn't bring up a huge amount either. What's your take? Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 08:12, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
I'd previously thought that The Bookseller would be usable, but this gives off the strong impression that their spotlights can include articles written about them. What's your take on this? It's a little coy on what it does or doesn't offer. I'd like to assume that this site is still usable, but the marketing package page really bothers me. I'll ping DGG on this since he's pretty savvy with book related sourcing and if the place is considered unusable, he'd know.
Then I have Mixergy. It's an interview with the site founder, which is a little better than a random person, but the site doesn't have a whole lot about the editorial process and I'm also aware that a lot of people see interviews as primary. I'm also aware that Max is kind of known for embellishing his stories, so I know that this could impact the reliability of his interviews as well. All of that aside, what's your take on Mixergy? My gut instinct is that it's not usable.
These are both related to Draft:Book in a Box. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 09:25, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Is The Guardian considered a reliable source? SW3 5DL ( talk) 03:51, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
Our article for Kassir, who is best known as the voice of the Crypt Keeper from the old Tales from the Crypt TV show, has seen a surprisingly contentious dispute over whether or not to include his birthdate. The conversation as it stands is essentially over with one editor feeling like his efforts are being treated too dismissively and consequently throwing a fit, one fit-throwing editor calming down, apologizing, and agreeing that the sources we have for Kassir's date of birth are weak, and one editor, an admin, requesting I come here.
If you're not interested in going down a hell of a rabbit-hole, no hard feelings. Feel free to stop reading.
WP:DOB says we shouldn't include people's birthdates if they haven't been widely published because of identity theft concerns, but it contains what appears to be an exception. DOB says: " Wikipedia includes full names and dates of birth that have been widely published by reliable sources, or by sources linked to the subject such that it may reasonably be inferred that the subject does not object." See how the second part of that sentence uses the word "sources" without the word "reliable" and its use is independent of the appearance of "reliable sources" in the first part of the sentence? Hold that thought.
This tweet has been retweeted twice, once by a Twitter account belonging to @JohnKassir. That account isn't verified by Twitter but it still contains enough footprints that I believe it's terribly obvious that it's actually him. I'm copying my own collection of evidence from Talk:John Kassir:
The tweet that @JohnKassir retweeted gave Kassir's date of birth as October 24, 1957, which exactly matches a ton of claims online made by database-ish sources that don't meet WP:RS or DOB standards. I believe the account's retweet establishes both this date's validity and that Kassir doesn't mind this information being disseminated. Of course, a non-verified Twitter account's retweet of another non-verified account doesn't meet RS, but I believe the language at DOB means this information can be included because the standard is lower. When I posted a big ol' wall of text at Kassir's talk, Ponyo still believed the claim should be left out. She says, and I agree, that it's "based on suppositions and WP:SYNTH" but she recommended I come here to firmly establish whether or not the standards for inclusion can be lowered per DOB and, if so, if this stuff is in compliance with these lowered standards. RunnyAmiga ( talk) 21:30, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
It would be nice to finally get some consensus as to the RSibility of Ballotpedia [21] since it's used in so many elections-related articles and I always have a high degree of trepidation citing it; there have been several discussions here that have resulted in no consensus. Is Ballotpedia RS for articles on United States elections?
The Daily Mirror is a British tabloid newspaper. It is at the better end of the scale for UK tabloids: the words are short and it's sensationalist and trivial, but it's not an outright fabricator as some are. They chose to scrape a little further down the popular outrage barrel and interviewed [25] a defence lawyer. I don't know if chequebooks were involved, but I doubt if this content would be available from any other source, other than indirectly through this same interview.
Is a UK tabloid, bound by UK laws on libel and reporting (which are onerous), an adequate source for comments from this interview?
I would claim that they are. The comment is relevant and of interest (in a somewhat prurient sense); it warrants inclusion. I do not find it credible that the content, a direct quote, even one used as the headline, would be inaccurately reported in a way that is a problem for our needs (I'm ignoring possible editorial paraphrasing as semantically unimportant). We do not like tabloids, but this is worth having, and it won't be coming from anywhere else. Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:03, 23 August 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I hope this is the right place to especially since it could also be placed at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard.
1. Sources:
2. Article: Racism in South Korea
3. Content: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Racism_in_South_Korea&type=revision&diff=735208159&oldid=734967280
The issue is that article mostly lists single incidents that are not really notable to the topic since more general things should be stated.
There is a dispute about the use of webblogs and the notability of an event. More is stated on the Talk:Racism in South Korea#Reliability of Weblogs and you can see also some minor notes in the " history". It would be nice to get some more opinions since the article is mainly protected by one user. Maybe you can state your opinions on the use of webblogs like AsianCorrespondent and KoreaObserver on an article like this. Also, The article of the Atlanta Black Star is just an opinion piece by a "journalist" without any empirical method. Moreover, there is the issue that there was a bar owner in Seoul who set up a note at his bar that due to Ebola, he would not let in black people. He apologized four days later, said, it was due to his bad English skills and gave out some beer. I find this event highly insignificant for an article like this. It is as notable as a local murder. Maybe a bad comparison, but still, it should not be in this article.
Actually, I have more issues with the article which completely lacks any scientific approach. The article is basically build up on news reports. However, I think news reports are only legitimate for articles on current events, video games, films and persons. However, articles on racism and discrimination should follow sociological research. Moreover, in contrast to the United States, which has been a melting pot from the beginning, South Korea is a homogene state. So, research is apparently also just at a beginning stage, making knowledge based on news papers even more invalid, I think. Furthermore, I think when the article is named "racism in South Korea" it should follow the definition of Racism. Even, if an wikipedia author does evaluate events by herself/himself, it is original research. Nonetheless, the article also has a section Discrimination against North Korean defectors. In my opinion, racism and discrimination are not the same. Therefore, some could argue that this section does not belong in the article.
Conducting an article like "racism in South Korea" is much effort. Basically because it is not a textbook topic like let's say Product Innovation Charter, where you can find a basic theoretical introduction in books and get very specific literature from databases. So, my approach to start an article like this would be to search for international ranking/indexes that follow a scientific approach to get a country comparison. Than someone could look for literature reviews to get a hold of the state of art of and find some more articles on databases like Google Scholar or ScienceDirect. I cannot see how source articles can give any information on such a new, in regards of South Korea, and specific research field. -- Christian140 ( talk) 11:32, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements. Prior discussion involved the reliability of the proposed sources. -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:47, 25 August 2016 (UTC)
Dear editors: I came across this article, Dane Elkins which has a lot of sources, but it seems to me that many of them are not independent, published information. Two of the sources are Livestream videos. I know that generally YouTube videos are not considered reliable sources, particularly to demonstrate notability, because anyone can post there; is Livestream a similar situation? Or is it used by professional broadcasters? Should those references be removed from the article? I don't know anything about racquetball, and there is no WikiProject about it; I'll leave it to someone else to decide if winning a lot of junior tournaments makes this person a notable player.— Anne Delong ( talk) 14:17, 26 August 2016 (UTC)