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 210 | ← | Archive 212 | Archive 213 | Archive 214 | Archive 215 | Archive 216 | → | Archive 220 |
I'm collapsing this train wreck because all the contributing IPs in it (obviously all one person) have been blocked for egregious personal attacks. It's impossible to follow anyway, as the individual won't sign their posts and puts them all over the place. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I am currently requesting an assessment of the Calcutta Journal and John Murray (publisher). Recently, an editor took it upon themselves to revert sourced edits, using the justification that "Raj is not reliable". Given that I do not understand what "Raj is not reliable" means, I assume the editor is taking issue with English/Anglo-based publications used to support the claims made in the articlse Phulkian sardars and Phulkian Misl. As a result, User:Bishonen recommended that I post this concern here, and allow the initiated to reach a conclusion about the quality of the source. User:Bishonen also gave me a warning, claiming I was involved in an edit war, but I disagree. I do not dispute that I ran risk of violating the Three revert rule, however the original reverter (editor) was no angel either: he or she violated the rule of "Big edits must be taken to the talk page first". Observing the edit history of both pages, where the claims were originally unsourced, followed by a generous anonymous editor providing rigorous citations (with URLs that anyone can inspect), I am requesting that these quality of these sources be assessed objectively. As User:Bishonen rightfully noted: It seems many edits involving Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are often controversial and invite controversy. Given that many of the Phulkian Misl descendants were undoubtedly beneficiaries of the policies carried out by the British empire (including myself), I am requesting that an impartial third party objectively assess the quality of the sources. Here, given the sanctions noted by User:Bishonen, I would prefer that the objective third party evaluation be carried out by an individual who is neither Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. Further, I request this user have no financial involvement with the Rothschild family. I understand these requirements are a lot to ask, but the citations are quite definitive. I cannot envision any objective editor stating they are biased or of poor quality, and that is why I am taking the extreme measure of asking a "white man" who does not have any financial dependence on the credit system or its architects (the Rothschild family) to please assess the source quality. Lastly, I want to take this moment to have a discussion about the controversy that belies this entire conundrum. Clearly the Hindu people look at the time of "British rule" unfavourably; that is their right. However, the role of the Phulkian Misl is especially sensitive, given their reticence, and later: rejection, of Ranjit Singh (who was north of the river). These individuals chose to side with Lord Gerard Lake in hopes that their descendants would be able to appreciate the ability to practice their faith in countries where they would not be oppressed by dominating faiths that currently reside in India. This oppression cannot be understated, and I urge those who assess the quality of these sources to take this into account. As someone who is of a dark skin colour, but not of Hindu or Muslim faith, it is increasingly difficult to live in the first world with the dignity and respect we were once afforded prior to the September 11th attacks. As a child, I could never imagine a situation where "our people" would be confused for a Muslim or Hindu, and consequently harmed either physically or mentally. I urge the individual who takes this case upon themselves to be sensitive to those who are appreciative of the liberties afforded by the Commonwealth Realms, and how the freedom of practicing our faith in the Realms without fear has enabled us to grow as individuals and contribute to the greater goals that do not involve the colour of people's skin. Thank you, Sincerely a concerned Sikh individual who is a legitimate Phulkian Misl descendent that is appreciative of the love, dignity, and space the "white man" has given me to "find myself", and consequently contribute in a way only Sir Arthur Wellesley (and the Irish) envisioned over two hundred years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.26.145 ( talk) 21:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I did some looking into this and i remain unclear about that the source is supposed to show. For instance, at Phulkian sardars, the source Calcutta Review, vol. 79 is linked to page 390 which shows only a tiny excerpt about lineage that "Phul is the senior eponym in descent from Siddhu" but that's all i see there. On the one hand, i see no glaring reason why this source would not be reliable about this, but i could see the possibility that this is true if there is some clearer explanation, because history written by the colonial power is not always to be trusted, but we ought to find other sources that make this claim. But... generally, even after looking into this for 1/2 hour, i remain very unclear about what the actual dispute is. SageRad ( talk) 12:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a fascinating example of the importance of point of view in relation to NPOV policy. What sources embody what points of view and how can we use them (or refuse to use them perhaps) to maintain the best approximation to NPOV that we can manage? A few real red flags i'd like to point out here about the IP user's behavior, though:
[1] References
|
Hi. I want to upload a couple of photos and have official permission to use them. Please could you tell me the email address for OTRS so I can send them the details. Thanks. Myosotis Scorpioides 13:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings all. I've been looking at some edit requests, particularly those stuck in the backlog here. I'm currently working through a number for Math for America. The requester has requested that an edit be made using an Upworthy article. As many will know, Upworthy is one of those social media outlets like Buzzfeed. I was considering declining the edit request, but as I'm uncertain how reliable Upworthy is, I figured I may as well bounce this to RSN to see what others think. I'd welcome the thoughts of those more familiar with this end of WP. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Blackmane ( talk) 08:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see the RfC Template talk:Infobox observatory#Comments on RfC: Satisfy verifiability related RfC? Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
An established editor with a track record of productive edits [4] recently created Diccionario enciclopédico hispano-americano de literatura, ciencias y artes and started putting links to it in various articles. [5]Is it a reliable source, or is this spam? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In this paper, a previously unknown government decree from Luxembourg in French (1951) has been scanned and published, on page 17, with a translation to English on pages 18 & 19. The decree contains the full text of a summary published in the Luxembourg Government's gazette here (page 1135).
The decree has been cited in the article Prince Bernadotte as a source on specific information about two different coats of arms issued to certain persons named in it.
This article text and sourcing (besides a lot of personal stuff) is what the discussion on that article's talk page has been about ( here). This was added, but the text was removed anyway.
Please help us determine whether or not the decree can be cited in the context it was. I may very well have been wrong it citing it that way, but more neutral input is needed. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Me again. This time, the source in question is
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987113000868 which argues that the ancient Lake Minchin in the
Altiplano occasionally drained into the
Pilcomayo River. Now the issue is that it is not entirely clear what the "Lake Minchin" they refer to is - as I noted on
the draft I am considering to use it on, there is quite some disagreement on the timing and naming of the various phases of Altiplano paleolakes - the text of the article However, we intend here to continue its usage and, hence, maintain the homage to the original discoverer of the whole system, which includes the northern Titicaca Basin, the southern Poopó-Coipasa-Uyuni Basin and the connecting Desaguadero River Basin (Fig. 1), based on the notion that these water bodies worked and still work as a system.
sounds like it does apply to southern Altiplano paleolakes in general and not necessarily to one specific lake cycle. And in this case, it would be worth mentioning on the draft as one prevalent view has it that the Tauca phase lake was the highest south Altiplano lake (--->and would thus be capable of draining into the Pilcomayo).
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello please can a senior editor or administrator check the reliability of a particular Salon online newspaper article reference number 58 in the article about public figure ' Sri Chinmoy'? On the Talk page for the article there was a discussion from October 2015 - February 2016 from various editors about whether the article could be counted as reliable but it does not seem to be decided upon by a senior editor. The discussion ends with no-one really able to decide. The article reads like a tabloid, gossip trashy almost pornographic downgrading to religion type article with no balance or dignity. Can it actually provide as a reference for an International encyclopedia especially for an unproven case that never had any legal deals or court cases at all? Your answer would be most appreciated. I feel there needs to be a final overall proper administrative decision. Thank you. 123.100.82.186 ( talk) 05:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nil Einne yes thank you for your feedback. My overall question to begin with was simply and only about whether the Salon article is deemed appropriate by Wikipedia as a reference. Now I understand that the answer is neither yes or no. However to so arrogantly say that it is "hardly surprising that someone would be a disgruntled ex-follower if the allegations of what they were required to do are true", is an utterly rude and inappropriate judgement about a subject matter you know absolutely nothing about and does not belong on a noticeboard like this. Why not just comment on the actual quality of the Salon article reference and the way it is being handled? You crossed the line with your ridiculous posted last BTW comment. More care is needed. 118.93.203.232 ( talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In terms of our policies, I'd say Salon is comparable to Fox News in several respects. Some people might argue about the degree or their reputations, but in very broad strokes:
There is discussion on David Wolfe (nutritionist) about whether the What Culture article "7 Hilariously Batsh*t Things David "Avocado" Wolfe Believes" would qualify as a reliable source for the information that David Wolfe is a flat-earth theorist. The site has editors for multiple subjects including science, which is the section that this article is in. Does this site have a good reputation for accuracy or otherwise qualify as a reliable source?
For some background, there are other (primary) sources from Wolfe himself verifying this information, but third-party secondary sources are preferred yet difficult to come by on this person. Adrian [232] 08:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
once claimed that solar panels are "draining the sun"is quickly proven to be absolutey wrong by clicking on the link to the tweet and seeing that Wolfe's next tweet in response was "Never even crossed my mind that folks would take the #SolarPower post LITERALLY. Scientism clergy are in an uproar!" So... no, it is most definitely not a reliable source for this kind of claim. SageRad ( talk) 17:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Whatculture.com" is not remotely a "reliable source" nor does it claim to be one. It is an "entertainment" source including a big wrestling site. (Since then we've grown to cover TV, Gaming, Music, History, Science, Technology, Comics, Sport, and Literature, and become the biggest unofficial Wrestling website in the world.) And I suggest any source which says: He’s also Flat Earther because, of course he f*cking is. is pretty much not usable. Sorry - epic fail for that site. Collect ( talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to double check this one, because inevitably someone will bring up in AfD that "it's just a fan blog", when the website is now published by Time Inc.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 16:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Santo contra los zombies (Santo vs. the Zombies, 1961) aka Invasion of the Zombies (dubbed in English) appears in WIKIPEDIA: SANTO the famous Mexican wrestler. Is missing in the list of all movies related to ZOMBIES.
The text being added in this edit is being contested by some editors to be sourced to an unreliable source. The text provides an alternative point of view regarding the genocide and provides necessary balance to the article. The author is Bangladeshi himself and his point of view in this book is contrary to mainstream Bangladeshi point of view. The text is being attributed to the book and author specifically and is not being cited as a fact. The feedback from editors not party to the dispute is appreciated.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
References
http://www.millenium.org/, French gaming and eSports website.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 04:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Concerning sourcing at Spotware: much of the article is sourced to these sites:
cTrader is awarded ‘Best Retail Platform 2013’ at the FX Week e-FX awards in New York.
completed 3402 Type I Audit under the guidance off Deloitte
Spotware becomes the first e-FX technology firm to offer netted accounts and hedged accounts under a single environment.
What is consensus on general reliability on any of these? And specifically, are FX Week e-FX awards notable in this context? - Brianhe ( talk) 17:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently I reverted an attempt to fill in a "citation needed" request with a citation to http://starsunfolded.com/ because, when I examined the site,
All of the above suggest that the site is someone's personal self-published project.
A link search reveals that this site is cited in several other articles.
I hesitate to remove those links because the site does have useful bio information about notable people, provided it's trustworthy, but as far as I can tell it's no better than IMDB. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The article Whitewashing in film uses American tabloid/clickbait websites as "reliable sources" to call Cleopatra a non-white (an anachronistic tag anyway). This is against general academic consensus that Cleopatra was from a heavily inbred Greek family, and also plays into the fringe Afrocentric theories of Egypt and the Jews, per the sources.
The sources to include Cleopatra are not academic, they are four American tabloids making clickbait lists.
First: Huffington Post using evidence cited from the Daily Mail, a notorious British tabloid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html
Second: Complex calls Cleopatra a "woman of color", a phrase which didn't exist 100 years ago never mind 2,000 years ago. Probable echoing of Afrocentric meme http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/04/25-minority-characters-that-hollywood-whitewashed/cleopatra
Third: US News: "The British-American actress (she had dual citizenship) doesn't look even remotely Egyptian or North African. " Not an argument, Cleopatra was Greek. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/12/white-actors-portraying-people-of-color-in-hollywood
Fourth: Madame Noire. An ethnocentric website claiming that both the Egyptians and Hebrews were black, both of which are discredited fringe theories. http://madamenoire.com/496138/cast-non-blacks-in-black-roles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.9.247 ( talk • contribs)
Cleo's lineage is fairly well-established, and she was not especially "Egyptian", so, unless someone manages to find it wrong, she was probably olive-skinned at most, and probably not with violet eyes. Meanwhile - clickbait sites do not meet WP:RS in my opinion for anything. http://www.genealogyintime.com/NewsStories/2009/March/did_cleopatra_have_african_ancestry.html mentions a claim that her sister had mixed features, if one believes that the skull examined was that of her sister. One more case where trying to classify people on the basis of ethnicity, even dead people, is not a great idea, Collect ( talk) 19:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a minor gap in the lineage.
The idea has been used by various writers and genealogists to question the purity of Cleopatra's lineage. The main problem as Chris Bennett puts it: "Her mother is not named in any of the classical sources. Her date of birth is several months before Cleopatra V was removed from power. Aside from a comment by Strabo 17.1.11 that Berenice IV was Ptolemy XII's only legitimate daughter, there is no suggestion in any ancient source that Cleopatra VII was illegitimate. Given the threat she posed to the Augustan regime in Rome, and the narrowness with which it was averted, it seems generally and reasonably agreed that this silence is positive evidence that she was legitimate, since there is every opportunity for her to be labelled a bastard if she was not the daughter of Cleopatra V, even if she was in fact the child of an officially recognised second queen. For general comments on the question of whether Ptolemy XII had a second wife, see discussion under Ptolemy XII."
In other words we are ignoring Strabo's comment that Cleopatra was not a legitimate daughter of Ptolemy XII to begin with. And he was her contemporary. Clearly there are gaps in our knowledge of Ptolemaic lineage. I do not know where the idea of an "African" Cleopatra comes from, but the pure Greek/Macedonian lineage of the dynasty is not known for certain. Dimadick ( talk) 22:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
What exactly makes it a "fringe theory"? The title of this section begs the conclusion. I don't see how that's ok. What i read in a brief survey of sources says that Cleopatra's race is not known well but there are indications she was not a white European. What qualifies something to be described as a "fringe theory" and then a question asked about it in that light? Anyway, the question here was whether a specific source is a RS, not what race Cleopatra was, but the way of asking it predetermines a specific conclusion. SageRad ( talk) 13:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
What exactly makes it a "fringe theory"?Anything that you believe. Just kidding. But seriously, I know for a fact that you've been linked to an expansive and complete answer to that question many, many times. Perhaps you should click on links your are offered, if -as your question indicates- you have no idea what they say. So go ahead and click on that link now, and read the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
BAM! Y'all could have saved a lot of time by doing a properly constructed search on google books, this literally took me a minute to find. Anyway: you don't need the clickbait articles because there are numerous reliable sources that describe Taylor-as-Cleopatra as whitewashing. Here is another example, which states that "It is not the first time that Hollywood has been accused of "whitewashing" historical figures in ancient history. Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra in 1963...." Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that most or all of the popular-media sources cited are either unreliable or, if reliable, of inferior quality to other sources that exist. Fyddlestix is right: there are a bunch of good academic works/works of film criticism that address the topic, and we should cite to those. Because there is pushback on the "white washing" claim, this too should be noted. An example text that I think would read better, and would reflect the high-quality sources, would be:
References
-- Neutrality talk 14:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
...implicitly sets out this does not have to be universal opinion that everyone agrees that X applies, and we don't need on this list to include the counter-points. That's on the list page:...That's fine by me, unless it's very contentious. If it's very contentious (if we can find about as many sources saying it's not whitewashing as saying it is), then we should mention that. Otherwise, just mentioning that "many" have called it whitewashing is enough. If it's a matter of just including it on the list: if there's any significant number of RSes calling it whitewashing, that's enough to include it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm raising this in advance of editing as I'm anticipating controversy. According to this German weekly, Edward Snowden is a "Russian agent" and Wikileaks, which arranged for Snowden's travel to Russia, works for Russian intelligence with Putin being informed "in detail" about every forthcoming WikiLeaks publication in advance. Wikileaks has responded by claiming that Focus is a tool of German intelligence. Anyone have any examples of where Focus has reported contradicted claims before (and failed to issue a correction if required)?-- Brian Dell ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I have talked about whether the source is reliable for
Burma campaign's infobox. Is this source reliable?
www
Skylar Lindsay, 'Palestinian fishermen struggle to survive next door to Netanyahu’s palatial suburb,'
It strikes me as a non-controversial piece of reportage by a travel writer mainly quoting local people in the Israeli village of Jisr az-Zarqa. It was published by the Mondoweiss web site.
The argument is, Mondoweiss is a blog and can never be used on Wikipedia, a position which has not been confirmed in the past by third parties examining what had developed into a modern web based news organization, under editorial control, and reflecting a wide variety of reportage and opinion.
On 2 occasions, the objecting editor replaced the source with sources he approves of, without altering the content. I argue that this itself testifies to the impression that the article has reliably reported what the people he interviewed remarked, and therefore can be used for things like villagers commuting for work in Haifa and Tel Aviv, a rather innocuous fact, but, in my view, not likely to be mentioned in multiple sources, given the obscurity of the village. Nishidani ( talk) 12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
1. Maja Daruwala is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court and wrote about the Central Sati Act here [16] where she mentions history of action against the practice of Sati.
2. The article concerned is Sati (practice).
3. The content using the source are in the section about sati under the rule of the Delhi sultanate and the mughals. These are the passages using the source.
Under the Delhi Sultanate, permission had to be sought from the widow before any practice of sati as a check against compulsion. However, this later became more of a formality.
Mughal emperor Humayun (1508-1556) tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar (1542–1605) was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his chief police officers. The chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts, and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice.
JustBeCool ( talk) 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
At Whole30, this diet is being described as a "fad diet" in the first sentence based on two sources: a listicle in Health, and an article in Business Insider. Neither source refers to the Whole30 as a fad diet in the article itself. The subtitle of the Health listicle is "Take a lesson from this year's diet fads, fitness flubs, and expert-approved movements." The title of the Business Insider article is "Millennials are obsessed with Whole 30, the ‘cultish’ fad diet taking over Instagram and Pinterest." Is there any precedent for using article titles in this way? Safehaven86 ( talk) 03:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's obviously a fad diet and there are sources that point this obvious fact out. Wikipedia needs to say so too per WP:PSCI. Fringe stuff must be clearly identified as such. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
On the specific question made at the start - no, they cannot. I recall this issue being discussed a while ago (sorry, can't provide the actual link). It was pointed out that article titles and book titles, and especially tagline subtitles below the main title, are often not decided on by the author of the article, but are derived from an editorial or layout decision and are designed to be eye catching. If there is no actual content in the article or book reproducing the terms or claims used in the title, then these sources should not be cited as sources using those terms or containing those claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Headlines in newspapers are written by headline writers whose primary task is to hook readers, As a result, headlines tend to overstate the "interesting bits" of any article, as readers of the Daily Mail can attest, or even readers of The Guardian. Better to find how the "interesting bit" is actually worded in the article than to give credence to the puffed headline. If "fad diet" is in the body of an article as fact, fine. If not, not. Collect ( talk) 19:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I want to know if UsaNews is considered a reliable source...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorbeluzzo ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone know if bwf.tournamentsoftware.com is a reliable source? There are enarly 900 links, including things like this abomination: Claudia Rivero (how many links to one site can you get in an article?). Guy ( Help!) 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting commentary from Prof. Ernst on the problem with Chinese studies: http://edzardernst.com/2016/10/data-fabrication-in-china-is-an-open-secret/
A recent survey of clinical trials in China has revealed fraudulent practice on a massive scale, according to a government investigation.
China's food and drug regulator recently carried out a one-year review of clinical trials, concluding that more than 80 percent of clinical data is "fabricated," state media reported.
That was for reality-based drugs, the problem is worse for quackery. Guy ( Help!) 11:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is Courthouse News Service a reliable source to cite regarding the lawsuit against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein? I would like to get a consensus before making any more edits. 173.67.106.134 ( talk) 03:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't find anything handily linkable on the problem with sourcing to Forbes - specifically, that they decided to trash their brand by running third-party blogs written by any old blogger under the "Forbes" brandname - they check the blogger is lucid first, but once they're in the stuff is just blog posts. People still can't quite believe that they actually do this and these are just blogs, not editorially-reviewed RSes, and I keep having to point this out. It really doesn't help that they put staff and print articles under forbes.com/blogs too.
(I can't find it now, but I remember an enlightening article from a freelancer who used to contribute to Forbes under her own name, but now makes ten times that ghosting corporate puff pieces that run on a Forbes blog URL.)
The approach I've tended to take is that anything under forbes.com/sites is just a blog, unless it specifically says "Forbes staff" or "From the print edition" (in which case it's Forbes as RS), and if the blogger is notable in the subject area it may be an RS blog.
Am I off base here? How do others approach the Forbes problem? - David Gerard ( talk) 09:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Around 250 to 300 stories go up on the forbes site each day. ... No matter their background or compensation, all contributors can publish their own work without so much as a cursory edit.So as long as you have a contributor account, you can write whatever you want in your Forbes blog and it doesn't get edited or fact-checked before publication, which means it pretty clearly fails WP:RS standards. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate additional attention to the article, where I was reverted twice due to the editor's insistence on using a Wehrmacht reenactment web site as a source for a citation. Please see: Talk:11th_Panzer_Division_(Wehrmacht)#11thpanzer.com. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The reliability of this source is doubted on the talk page of Talk:Battle of Karbala. Can it be used?
Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"the Battle of Karbala took place within the crisis environment resulting from the succession of Yazid I,"a saying which is in accordance with stronger sources such as this one. -- Mhhossein talk 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"Yazīd’s caliphate marked the beginning of the crisis, commonly referred to as fitna."So, this is not just my "claim". -- Mhhossein talk 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the following content reliably sourced? Other issues under policy?
On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking Levodopa to treat Parkinson's disease. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 20:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate another set of eyes on the article where an editor restored removed material stating that the web site is suitable to use as a source. Please see: Talk:Günther_Seeger#Recent edit. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This news article [1] in Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports on a high-level meeting between civilian and military authorities. Then it adds a denial by the government, titled "Clarification". Do I understand the WP:RS correctly that we still go by the newspaper report, despite the denial? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Addressing Gen Akhtar, the younger Sharif complained that whenever action has been taken against certain groups by civilian authorities, the security establishment has worked behind the scenes to set the arrested free.This would support a claim already made in the Jaish-e-Mohammed article (and contested) where an "unnamed official" was reported to have said similar things. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
References
I don't know if this is the correct place to ask because it's not about the veracity of the source, but rather about whether a source should be used in a particular way.
The question is about whether an individual book entry on a list should be accompanied by a citation on the basis "it is the last known interview with the world-renowned author and gives his own opinion on this, his final work." Well, fair enough, I don't have a problem with incorporating significant information into the article and citing the source (and this is indeed done at another place in the article with the same source) but that isn't what it is being used for here. Using the source in this particular way just supports the existence of the book, which is self-citing anyway and the author's entire ouvre is now supported by a citation to the British library. So the question is a very simple one: does the citation benefit the article in the way it is used in the linked edit above? Betty Logan ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
In examining what seem to be extraordinary claims in a News of Science article cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination):
"2016 FEB 7 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at News of Science -- Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies). Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.
"This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are; they're completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope," stated Dr. …"
I found that almost identical reports of this extraordinary claim could be found on Business Television, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance, and YourNewsWire.com, among others. Should we consider these news outlets and the online business press reliable secondary sources of information after this? I ask because only the extraordinary nature of the claim made in these articles drew my attention to this issue. It's plausible that these and other business news outlets routinely add their bylines to whatever comes through PR Newswire and other online conduits for business press releases. This makes them potentially a routine WP:PRIMARY source of information.
is it plausible that an editor at CNN Money or Yahoo! Finance looked at that copy and decided to put their firm's byline on it? Either a "yes" or "no" answer to that points to a major problem with them and other business news sources that routinely use PR Newswire or other online conduits for corporate press releases as sources for information which they they byline locally to have it appear as though this is copy that's been written by a staff writer and reviewed by an editor. If there was editorial review on this story, it failed in what we'd think was a primary journalistic duty to report accurately, and pursue alternate sources of information on extraordinary or implausible claims made by companies on which they report.
I think there ought to be general guidance to editors in WP:RS to scrutinize claims made in the business press closely, or simply not to regard the online business press as an independent secondary source of information unless there is evidence that the specific article being cited differs enough from other articles on the same subject to show active authorship and editorial review at the site where the article is found. loupgarous ( talk) 22:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the conservative magazine National Review a RS in context for the following quote be included in the article Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy?
On July 17, 1979, she had 115 contracts outstanding with a market value of $3.2 million. A 4 or 5 per cent adverse fluctuation, as occurred once or twice a month, in Clinton’s position would have constituted five times her annual income and five times her net worth. [1]
WP:BLPSOURCES does not require magazines with identifiable political leanings to be removed. WP:BIASED "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.” One of the co-authors of the article is a former professor of finance at UC Berkeley, so expertise. This isn't highly contentious material, also, just a simple calculation from publicly available material: Hillary’s trading records, the cattle futures market at the time, the Clintons’ salary and net worth from pubic released information. There are lots of RSs saying similar things about the size of her exposure relative to the Clintons net wort at the time. The NR quote that I want to include is only the most detailed and would illustrate the facts best. Newsweek: The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[2] Yet Mrs. Clinton took surprisingly large positions in cattle futures, earning one-day profits as high as $30,000. Had the market moved the other way, she could have lost huge amounts virtually overnight, according to market specialists. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-31/news/mn-40520_1_hillary-clinton another RS talking about the size of hillary’s risk https://books.google.com/books?id=NIIVeirctosC&pg=PA218 She acquired 50 new cattle contracts – worth $1.4 million -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm NPalgan2 ( talk) 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
References
I need clarification on some issues. The article Iru Sagodharigal has link to google drive. Can such link consider as a reliable link/source? If the owner delete the file, it might be dead link. The link is for scan document of book that has songs of a film. It was published by a press that has no authority with film production and copyright. Similar such song books are publish in India and Sri Lanka. I feel it not fit with WP:RS. If anyone of you take action of article and inform user, I could do in future patrol. BTW, please share any link or discussion that could satisfy my question. Thanks. -- Antan O 07:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
1. Maja Daruwala is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court and wrote about the Central Sati Act here [22] where she mentions history of action against the practice of Sati.
2. The article concerned is Sati (practice).
3. The content using the source are in the section about sati during the rule of the Delhi sultanate and the mughals. These are the passages that are citing the source.
Under the Delhi Sultanate, permission had to be sought from the widow before any practice of sati as a check against compulsion. However, this later became more of a formality.
Mughal emperor Humayun (1508-1556) tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar (1542–1605) was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his chief police officers. The chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts, and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice.
JustBeCool ( talk) 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The references in the article on
Microwave volumetric heating seem to exist mostly of press releases by organizations and universities involved in the commercial development of the technique and the company that offers it, AMT. Also, the article tells a lot about why this technique is supposed to be so great, supported by these references, but offers little encyclopaedic content on how it actually works, as I noted on the article's talk page. I am wondering whether the article should be tagged with {{
Advert}}
or {{
External links}}
and subsequently rewritten. (
Current revision) --
IByte (
talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Not an academic source this time, but I wonder if Matthew Paris is a reliable source for contemporary events in the 1250s, specifically the ones he's quoted for in User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1257 Samalas eruption - Iridescent did give a cautionary note on this on his ( User talk:Iridescent) user talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I was editing the Charlie Clouser article when I noticed that, aside from the cited claim I added, there were only three citations in the article. I removed one of them because it came from IMDB, which certainly isn't reliable. The other two citations (which are still in the article) come from a website called SoundtrackNet. Is this site reliable in any way? Because judging from the layout of the site, it appears very amateurish to me. Should the citations be removed? Dark Knight 2149 23:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there a policy reason why all lulu.com sources should be deleted on sight? Without per source, or per-use review? Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
There are currently in excess of 2,000 links to lulu.com in Wikipedia articles. Lulu is a vanity press, a self-publishing outfit, and has no editorial oversight. The majority of links I find to lulu.com seem to me to be clearly inapporpriate: opinions by non-notable individuals, claims made without the benefit of independent fact-checking and so on. The links are often, but far from always, redundant.
Blurb: "Ten years after the death of Princess Diana, the cover-up of the century is blown apart. Thoroughly researched by a private detective and investigative journalist. The full shocking truth of the involvement of British intelligence in the 'accidental' death of one of the 20th Century's leading icons. The Lying Game is exposed!". So: Self-published conspiracist nutjobbery. Guy ( Help!) 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems there is little expressed disagreement on policy - both Andy and Guy recognize that Lulu publications are WP:SPS and therefore may be used in some contexts, but not others - and so the real issue here is procedure. Should all Lulu sources now be removed, and in the few cases where those sources were merited, they can be brought back by concerned editors? Or should editors removing Lulu sources check each source before deleting?
While obviously procedure will follow some kind of middle course, I would tend towards the second option. This proposed template deletion and the comments therein are a good example of why: blindly bulldozing references without consulting their merits disrupts the hard work that others have put into properly sourcing some articles. It is no more appropriate to delete all Lulu books than it is to delete every WP:SPS on the encyclopedia and hope that other editors reinstate the (tens, hundreds of thousands of) good sources.
Guy, if you want to find bad sources by following Lulu links, that's great, but it's fair to ask you to look at what you're deleting. - Darouet ( talk) 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have not been on this page for a long time, so please bare with me. I am asking the communities opinion of a online source found here. Its original source, in printed format, does not appear to be clearly stated, and was added with this edit to the article Asian American movement. Is this a reliable source, or is it user generated content?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm working on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article and have an interesting article published on Dan Abrams's site LawNewz that would be great to use. Specifically, the information that is helpful is that there is no federal statute of limitations on the Jane Doe case - and other points about the viability of the case.
Based on his background as an attorney and legal analyst / journalist, I thought he might be a reliable source, but want to check here. I did a search of RSN and did not find a previous posting for LawNewz. Its editorial staff is mentioned here. Would you consider LawNewz a reliable source?
Because of sensitive NPOV and BLP issues, we want to ensure that we're verifying that our sources are reliable sources. Thanks so much!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
boxofficedetail
The findings of CMD's investigative journalism are regularly cited by the leading national and state newspapers in the U.S., including the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Washington Post. CMD's reporting is credited by news shows on major broadcast stations including HBO, Showtime, PBS, NBC, CBS, and others, and has also been featured on in-depth news programs, such as Moyers & Company, Democracy Now, and the Thom Hartmann Show, as well as NPR and other public broadcasting agencies, such as the BBC and CBC.
Is this a reliable source for the death year of Trần Văn Đôn? The site seems to be similar to Sports Reference, which is usually an accepted source for biographical information of athletes. EternalNomad ( talk) 02:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The Findagrave guide says not to use it as a reference if " it is a circular reference to Wikipedia". However, a user is deleting all references to Findagrave and even deleting the cemetery information from the text because it is derived from Findagrave, even when the information comes from a photograph of the tombstone. See this change for example, and then see their user contributions where they have done the same to over 100 biographies. Should this be occurring? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
"An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International."
The question regarding photographs is a bit more interesting than y'all are making it out to be though, IMO. Let's think about this.
We use countless thousands of photographs (most of them hosted on Commons, FWIW) where the photograph provides information about the subject and the only -- the only -- verification for this is some random (usually anonymous!) person's say-so: "Photograph of St Basil's Cathedral in Novgorod. Own Work. Uploaded by photographer".
On one level, this is ridiculous. Why can we present an image as "own work" and not a paragraph of text? They are very similar things. We don't publish a paragraph of text "St Basil's Cathedral is a large white building, three stories, with seven gold-covered domes, etc. etc." sourced to <ref>I was there and I saw it myself</ref>, right? Yet we publish a photo with the same info and essentially the same level of sourcing.
On another level, it's not ridiculous at all. It works -- vandalism via faking a photo is rare I believe -- and even though it doesn't follow our theory it works in practice. So as a matter of de facto practice, photographs are specially privileged here and always have been (and there are various good reasons for this. For one thing, it takes much more effort and skill to fake a photo, more time and skill than the average vandal cares to apply.)
So here's a question: I can take and upload a photo of St Basil's Cathedral, and put it in an article. We all agree I can, it's common practice. So can I not take and upload a photo of St Basil's Cathedral and (if for some reason I preferred to) use it to ref a text description of the entity instead putting the photo in the article? (Assume the text description limited itself to blue-sky facts clearly seen in the photo, so that interpretation is not an issue.) It's an interesting question! I can't see why not.
So how is my taking a photo of gravestone different? Yes in theory I could have the wrong gravestone (just as, in theory, I could have mistaken St Basil's Cathedral for a different one). Yes in theory I could be deliberately vandalizing by taking a photo of a wrong gravestone on purpose, or photoshopping it (just as, in theory, I could do the same with St Basil's Cathedral). But in practice, this is vanishingly unlikely, as recognized by the fact that I can do this per our common practice.
So... how is a photo at FindAGrave different -- and worse -- than one I take myself? Yes the person could be wrong. Yes the person could be a photoshopping troll. Either is vanishingly unlikely, and if we eliminate sources that are vanishingly unlikely to be wrong, we must eliminate the New York Times and every other source and be left with nothing.
It's perfectly reasonable to use photographs (and just photographs) from FindAGrave as references. Herostratus ( talk) 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello reliable sources experts. I came across an article which had a reference to billboard.biz ( this one). I tried to look up billboard.biz in Wikipedia, but it redirects to Billboard, which makes no mention of it. Often .biz sites are full of press releases and profiles written by closely connected sources. Can anyone tell me if billboard.biz is a reliable independent source? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
User Ghinozzi-nissim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently added a very large number of entries to "further reading", all using the same edit summary, all tot he same book, Dye, David. Child and Youth Actors: Filmography of Their Entire Careers, 1914-1985. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 1988. This is suspicious, IMO, but is this a RS? Guy ( Help!) 17:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The emphasis rests on acting credits; the scant biographical information is inconsistent and inadequately researched. Unfortunately, the filmographies suffer the same problem. Many credits are missing... There are some photos but no references to them are found in the entries... Dye's work has too many holes to stand on its own.I'd say it would be useful only with caution, if at all. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Under Policies for Hillary Clinton her point of view is different. A cited source is not accurate or credible when It is from a SuperPAC. Source 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 464, 469, 475. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8452
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5928
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Interesting article here: [24] - references IGI Global as a vanity press, pretty much as expected. Guy ( Help!) 21:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Relevant discussion on the article's talk page TMZ -- does this belong? Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed in the past [26] but wanted to revisit the reliability of Vote Smart, specifically in regards to politicians' voting records. The site claims to provide "free, factual, unbiased information on candidates and elected officials". The source is currently being discussed on Joe Heck's talk page. Thanks! Meatsgains ( talk) 14:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty determining whether http://pulse.com.gh and http://ghanaweb.com are mainstream news sources with professional journalistic standards, particularly in respect of "celebrity news". These two websites are the only sources cited in a new BLP draft at AFC - Draft:Elaine Attoh. If these websites are ok it solves a significant potential issue for the draft. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am currently editing an article about the new Doom to make it reach the GA-class, but GA reviewer Cognissonance is not sure about the reliability of Tom's Hardware as used in this passage in the article:
"The CEO of id Software, Todd Hollenshead, suggested that, like Doom II: Hell on Earth, it would take place on Earth..."
Is it a reliable source, or should it be removed?
Gamingforfun365
(talk) 15:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This is about [27], wherein Emmisgood has reverted my edit claiming that a book published by the University of California Press would be unreliable. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So, there are two reliable sources making the same claim:
I have reverted his/her edit based upon verifying the information to both sources. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles about the authors: Bryan R. Wilson, Peter Clarke (historian) and Massimo Introvigne. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So:
I don't see why these two sources would be unreliable to make the claim, certainly there is no Wikipedia requirement of peer-review for books. I certainly find that "- Edit of Tgeorgescu from 22-Oct-16 Undone as it expresses an undocumented personal opinion and/or interpretation of both the editor and the referenced publication. The referenced publication notes no validated or peer reviewed sources for the authors statement, which again reflects an opinion and/or personal perception" is a spurious reason and it is contrary to WP:PAG. Also, that editor may have a conflict of interest in respect to the article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the sources mentioned above are the only independent sources from the whole article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Background information: the Message of the Grail claims that Jesus Christ has spread the Word of God in cryptic parables and just before the Final Judgment Abd-ru-shin has brought the Word of God in plaintext, in order to save human souls. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Just taking at face value that Peter Clarke was the editor of that encyclopedia, it does have editorial control. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, Emmisgood has displayed particularly bad editorial judgment at [28], falling for a source contrary to both WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The question: Is this primary source reliable enough to state that "As of 2012, 99% of physical therapy programs were teaching spine manipulation in the United States." at the spinal manipulation article. Thanks 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:10CE:C4B8:714A:FA5 ( talk) 03:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
2001:56A:75B7:9B00:5126:F27E:3621:D9FC ( talk) 04:15, 20 October 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 210 | ← | Archive 212 | Archive 213 | Archive 214 | Archive 215 | Archive 216 | → | Archive 220 |
I'm collapsing this train wreck because all the contributing IPs in it (obviously all one person) have been blocked for egregious personal attacks. It's impossible to follow anyway, as the individual won't sign their posts and puts them all over the place. Bishonen | talk 21:33, 24 September 2016 (UTC). |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Hello, I am currently requesting an assessment of the Calcutta Journal and John Murray (publisher). Recently, an editor took it upon themselves to revert sourced edits, using the justification that "Raj is not reliable". Given that I do not understand what "Raj is not reliable" means, I assume the editor is taking issue with English/Anglo-based publications used to support the claims made in the articlse Phulkian sardars and Phulkian Misl. As a result, User:Bishonen recommended that I post this concern here, and allow the initiated to reach a conclusion about the quality of the source. User:Bishonen also gave me a warning, claiming I was involved in an edit war, but I disagree. I do not dispute that I ran risk of violating the Three revert rule, however the original reverter (editor) was no angel either: he or she violated the rule of "Big edits must be taken to the talk page first". Observing the edit history of both pages, where the claims were originally unsourced, followed by a generous anonymous editor providing rigorous citations (with URLs that anyone can inspect), I am requesting that these quality of these sources be assessed objectively. As User:Bishonen rightfully noted: It seems many edits involving Pakistan, India and Afghanistan are often controversial and invite controversy. Given that many of the Phulkian Misl descendants were undoubtedly beneficiaries of the policies carried out by the British empire (including myself), I am requesting that an impartial third party objectively assess the quality of the sources. Here, given the sanctions noted by User:Bishonen, I would prefer that the objective third party evaluation be carried out by an individual who is neither Hindu, Sikh or Muslim. Further, I request this user have no financial involvement with the Rothschild family. I understand these requirements are a lot to ask, but the citations are quite definitive. I cannot envision any objective editor stating they are biased or of poor quality, and that is why I am taking the extreme measure of asking a "white man" who does not have any financial dependence on the credit system or its architects (the Rothschild family) to please assess the source quality. Lastly, I want to take this moment to have a discussion about the controversy that belies this entire conundrum. Clearly the Hindu people look at the time of "British rule" unfavourably; that is their right. However, the role of the Phulkian Misl is especially sensitive, given their reticence, and later: rejection, of Ranjit Singh (who was north of the river). These individuals chose to side with Lord Gerard Lake in hopes that their descendants would be able to appreciate the ability to practice their faith in countries where they would not be oppressed by dominating faiths that currently reside in India. This oppression cannot be understated, and I urge those who assess the quality of these sources to take this into account. As someone who is of a dark skin colour, but not of Hindu or Muslim faith, it is increasingly difficult to live in the first world with the dignity and respect we were once afforded prior to the September 11th attacks. As a child, I could never imagine a situation where "our people" would be confused for a Muslim or Hindu, and consequently harmed either physically or mentally. I urge the individual who takes this case upon themselves to be sensitive to those who are appreciative of the liberties afforded by the Commonwealth Realms, and how the freedom of practicing our faith in the Realms without fear has enabled us to grow as individuals and contribute to the greater goals that do not involve the colour of people's skin. Thank you, Sincerely a concerned Sikh individual who is a legitimate Phulkian Misl descendent that is appreciative of the love, dignity, and space the "white man" has given me to "find myself", and consequently contribute in a way only Sir Arthur Wellesley (and the Irish) envisioned over two hundred years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 183.88.26.145 ( talk) 21:31, 23 September 2016 (UTC)
I did some looking into this and i remain unclear about that the source is supposed to show. For instance, at Phulkian sardars, the source Calcutta Review, vol. 79 is linked to page 390 which shows only a tiny excerpt about lineage that "Phul is the senior eponym in descent from Siddhu" but that's all i see there. On the one hand, i see no glaring reason why this source would not be reliable about this, but i could see the possibility that this is true if there is some clearer explanation, because history written by the colonial power is not always to be trusted, but we ought to find other sources that make this claim. But... generally, even after looking into this for 1/2 hour, i remain very unclear about what the actual dispute is. SageRad ( talk) 12:48, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
This is a fascinating example of the importance of point of view in relation to NPOV policy. What sources embody what points of view and how can we use them (or refuse to use them perhaps) to maintain the best approximation to NPOV that we can manage? A few real red flags i'd like to point out here about the IP user's behavior, though:
[1] References
|
Hi. I want to upload a couple of photos and have official permission to use them. Please could you tell me the email address for OTRS so I can send them the details. Thanks. Myosotis Scorpioides 13:27, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Greetings all. I've been looking at some edit requests, particularly those stuck in the backlog here. I'm currently working through a number for Math for America. The requester has requested that an edit be made using an Upworthy article. As many will know, Upworthy is one of those social media outlets like Buzzfeed. I was considering declining the edit request, but as I'm uncertain how reliable Upworthy is, I figured I may as well bounce this to RSN to see what others think. I'd welcome the thoughts of those more familiar with this end of WP. Thanks in advance for your thoughts. Blackmane ( talk) 08:36, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Please see the RfC Template talk:Infobox observatory#Comments on RfC: Satisfy verifiability related RfC? Jc3s5h ( talk) 12:40, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
An established editor with a track record of productive edits [4] recently created Diccionario enciclopédico hispano-americano de literatura, ciencias y artes and started putting links to it in various articles. [5]Is it a reliable source, or is this spam? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:58, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In this paper, a previously unknown government decree from Luxembourg in French (1951) has been scanned and published, on page 17, with a translation to English on pages 18 & 19. The decree contains the full text of a summary published in the Luxembourg Government's gazette here (page 1135).
The decree has been cited in the article Prince Bernadotte as a source on specific information about two different coats of arms issued to certain persons named in it.
This article text and sourcing (besides a lot of personal stuff) is what the discussion on that article's talk page has been about ( here). This was added, but the text was removed anyway.
Please help us determine whether or not the decree can be cited in the context it was. I may very well have been wrong it citing it that way, but more neutral input is needed. -- SergeWoodzing ( talk) 14:27, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Me again. This time, the source in question is
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1674987113000868 which argues that the ancient Lake Minchin in the
Altiplano occasionally drained into the
Pilcomayo River. Now the issue is that it is not entirely clear what the "Lake Minchin" they refer to is - as I noted on
the draft I am considering to use it on, there is quite some disagreement on the timing and naming of the various phases of Altiplano paleolakes - the text of the article However, we intend here to continue its usage and, hence, maintain the homage to the original discoverer of the whole system, which includes the northern Titicaca Basin, the southern Poopó-Coipasa-Uyuni Basin and the connecting Desaguadero River Basin (Fig. 1), based on the notion that these water bodies worked and still work as a system.
sounds like it does apply to southern Altiplano paleolakes in general and not necessarily to one specific lake cycle. And in this case, it would be worth mentioning on the draft as one prevalent view has it that the Tauca phase lake was the highest south Altiplano lake (--->and would thus be capable of draining into the Pilcomayo).
Jo-Jo Eumerus (
talk,
contributions) 16:11, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello please can a senior editor or administrator check the reliability of a particular Salon online newspaper article reference number 58 in the article about public figure ' Sri Chinmoy'? On the Talk page for the article there was a discussion from October 2015 - February 2016 from various editors about whether the article could be counted as reliable but it does not seem to be decided upon by a senior editor. The discussion ends with no-one really able to decide. The article reads like a tabloid, gossip trashy almost pornographic downgrading to religion type article with no balance or dignity. Can it actually provide as a reference for an International encyclopedia especially for an unproven case that never had any legal deals or court cases at all? Your answer would be most appreciated. I feel there needs to be a final overall proper administrative decision. Thank you. 123.100.82.186 ( talk) 05:20, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
Hi Nil Einne yes thank you for your feedback. My overall question to begin with was simply and only about whether the Salon article is deemed appropriate by Wikipedia as a reference. Now I understand that the answer is neither yes or no. However to so arrogantly say that it is "hardly surprising that someone would be a disgruntled ex-follower if the allegations of what they were required to do are true", is an utterly rude and inappropriate judgement about a subject matter you know absolutely nothing about and does not belong on a noticeboard like this. Why not just comment on the actual quality of the Salon article reference and the way it is being handled? You crossed the line with your ridiculous posted last BTW comment. More care is needed. 118.93.203.232 ( talk) 21:49, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
In terms of our policies, I'd say Salon is comparable to Fox News in several respects. Some people might argue about the degree or their reputations, but in very broad strokes:
There is discussion on David Wolfe (nutritionist) about whether the What Culture article "7 Hilariously Batsh*t Things David "Avocado" Wolfe Believes" would qualify as a reliable source for the information that David Wolfe is a flat-earth theorist. The site has editors for multiple subjects including science, which is the section that this article is in. Does this site have a good reputation for accuracy or otherwise qualify as a reliable source?
For some background, there are other (primary) sources from Wolfe himself verifying this information, but third-party secondary sources are preferred yet difficult to come by on this person. Adrian [232] 08:20, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
once claimed that solar panels are "draining the sun"is quickly proven to be absolutey wrong by clicking on the link to the tweet and seeing that Wolfe's next tweet in response was "Never even crossed my mind that folks would take the #SolarPower post LITERALLY. Scientism clergy are in an uproar!" So... no, it is most definitely not a reliable source for this kind of claim. SageRad ( talk) 17:32, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
"Whatculture.com" is not remotely a "reliable source" nor does it claim to be one. It is an "entertainment" source including a big wrestling site. (Since then we've grown to cover TV, Gaming, Music, History, Science, Technology, Comics, Sport, and Literature, and become the biggest unofficial Wrestling website in the world.) And I suggest any source which says: He’s also Flat Earther because, of course he f*cking is. is pretty much not usable. Sorry - epic fail for that site. Collect ( talk) 19:36, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Just wanted to double check this one, because inevitably someone will bring up in AfD that "it's just a fan blog", when the website is now published by Time Inc.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 16:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
Santo contra los zombies (Santo vs. the Zombies, 1961) aka Invasion of the Zombies (dubbed in English) appears in WIKIPEDIA: SANTO the famous Mexican wrestler. Is missing in the list of all movies related to ZOMBIES.
The text being added in this edit is being contested by some editors to be sourced to an unreliable source. The text provides an alternative point of view regarding the genocide and provides necessary balance to the article. The author is Bangladeshi himself and his point of view in this book is contrary to mainstream Bangladeshi point of view. The text is being attributed to the book and author specifically and is not being cited as a fact. The feedback from editors not party to the dispute is appreciated.
Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 20:17, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
References
http://www.millenium.org/, French gaming and eSports website.-- Prisencolin ( talk) 04:44, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
Concerning sourcing at Spotware: much of the article is sourced to these sites:
cTrader is awarded ‘Best Retail Platform 2013’ at the FX Week e-FX awards in New York.
completed 3402 Type I Audit under the guidance off Deloitte
Spotware becomes the first e-FX technology firm to offer netted accounts and hedged accounts under a single environment.
What is consensus on general reliability on any of these? And specifically, are FX Week e-FX awards notable in this context? - Brianhe ( talk) 17:16, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
Recently I reverted an attempt to fill in a "citation needed" request with a citation to http://starsunfolded.com/ because, when I examined the site,
All of the above suggest that the site is someone's personal self-published project.
A link search reveals that this site is cited in several other articles.
I hesitate to remove those links because the site does have useful bio information about notable people, provided it's trustworthy, but as far as I can tell it's no better than IMDB. ~ Amatulić ( talk) 20:49, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
The article Whitewashing in film uses American tabloid/clickbait websites as "reliable sources" to call Cleopatra a non-white (an anachronistic tag anyway). This is against general academic consensus that Cleopatra was from a heavily inbred Greek family, and also plays into the fringe Afrocentric theories of Egypt and the Jews, per the sources.
The sources to include Cleopatra are not academic, they are four American tabloids making clickbait lists.
First: Huffington Post using evidence cited from the Daily Mail, a notorious British tabloid http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1095043/Sorry-Liz-THIS-real-face-Cleopatra.html
Second: Complex calls Cleopatra a "woman of color", a phrase which didn't exist 100 years ago never mind 2,000 years ago. Probable echoing of Afrocentric meme http://uk.complex.com/pop-culture/2013/04/25-minority-characters-that-hollywood-whitewashed/cleopatra
Third: US News: "The British-American actress (she had dual citizenship) doesn't look even remotely Egyptian or North African. " Not an argument, Cleopatra was Greek. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/06/12/white-actors-portraying-people-of-color-in-hollywood
Fourth: Madame Noire. An ethnocentric website claiming that both the Egyptians and Hebrews were black, both of which are discredited fringe theories. http://madamenoire.com/496138/cast-non-blacks-in-black-roles/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.18.9.247 ( talk • contribs)
Cleo's lineage is fairly well-established, and she was not especially "Egyptian", so, unless someone manages to find it wrong, she was probably olive-skinned at most, and probably not with violet eyes. Meanwhile - clickbait sites do not meet WP:RS in my opinion for anything. http://www.genealogyintime.com/NewsStories/2009/March/did_cleopatra_have_african_ancestry.html mentions a claim that her sister had mixed features, if one believes that the skull examined was that of her sister. One more case where trying to classify people on the basis of ethnicity, even dead people, is not a great idea, Collect ( talk) 19:29, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
There is a minor gap in the lineage.
The idea has been used by various writers and genealogists to question the purity of Cleopatra's lineage. The main problem as Chris Bennett puts it: "Her mother is not named in any of the classical sources. Her date of birth is several months before Cleopatra V was removed from power. Aside from a comment by Strabo 17.1.11 that Berenice IV was Ptolemy XII's only legitimate daughter, there is no suggestion in any ancient source that Cleopatra VII was illegitimate. Given the threat she posed to the Augustan regime in Rome, and the narrowness with which it was averted, it seems generally and reasonably agreed that this silence is positive evidence that she was legitimate, since there is every opportunity for her to be labelled a bastard if she was not the daughter of Cleopatra V, even if she was in fact the child of an officially recognised second queen. For general comments on the question of whether Ptolemy XII had a second wife, see discussion under Ptolemy XII."
In other words we are ignoring Strabo's comment that Cleopatra was not a legitimate daughter of Ptolemy XII to begin with. And he was her contemporary. Clearly there are gaps in our knowledge of Ptolemaic lineage. I do not know where the idea of an "African" Cleopatra comes from, but the pure Greek/Macedonian lineage of the dynasty is not known for certain. Dimadick ( talk) 22:51, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
What exactly makes it a "fringe theory"? The title of this section begs the conclusion. I don't see how that's ok. What i read in a brief survey of sources says that Cleopatra's race is not known well but there are indications she was not a white European. What qualifies something to be described as a "fringe theory" and then a question asked about it in that light? Anyway, the question here was whether a specific source is a RS, not what race Cleopatra was, but the way of asking it predetermines a specific conclusion. SageRad ( talk) 13:50, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
What exactly makes it a "fringe theory"?Anything that you believe. Just kidding. But seriously, I know for a fact that you've been linked to an expansive and complete answer to that question many, many times. Perhaps you should click on links your are offered, if -as your question indicates- you have no idea what they say. So go ahead and click on that link now, and read the article. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 19:48, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
BAM! Y'all could have saved a lot of time by doing a properly constructed search on google books, this literally took me a minute to find. Anyway: you don't need the clickbait articles because there are numerous reliable sources that describe Taylor-as-Cleopatra as whitewashing. Here is another example, which states that "It is not the first time that Hollywood has been accused of "whitewashing" historical figures in ancient history. Elizabeth Taylor played Cleopatra in 1963...." Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:48, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
I agree that most or all of the popular-media sources cited are either unreliable or, if reliable, of inferior quality to other sources that exist. Fyddlestix is right: there are a bunch of good academic works/works of film criticism that address the topic, and we should cite to those. Because there is pushback on the "white washing" claim, this too should be noted. An example text that I think would read better, and would reflect the high-quality sources, would be:
References
-- Neutrality talk 14:34, 27 September 2016 (UTC)
...implicitly sets out this does not have to be universal opinion that everyone agrees that X applies, and we don't need on this list to include the counter-points. That's on the list page:...That's fine by me, unless it's very contentious. If it's very contentious (if we can find about as many sources saying it's not whitewashing as saying it is), then we should mention that. Otherwise, just mentioning that "many" have called it whitewashing is enough. If it's a matter of just including it on the list: if there's any significant number of RSes calling it whitewashing, that's enough to include it. MjolnirPants Tell me all about it. 01:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I'm raising this in advance of editing as I'm anticipating controversy. According to this German weekly, Edward Snowden is a "Russian agent" and Wikileaks, which arranged for Snowden's travel to Russia, works for Russian intelligence with Putin being informed "in detail" about every forthcoming WikiLeaks publication in advance. Wikileaks has responded by claiming that Focus is a tool of German intelligence. Anyone have any examples of where Focus has reported contradicted claims before (and failed to issue a correction if required)?-- Brian Dell ( talk) 17:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
I have talked about whether the source is reliable for
Burma campaign's infobox. Is this source reliable?
www
Skylar Lindsay, 'Palestinian fishermen struggle to survive next door to Netanyahu’s palatial suburb,'
It strikes me as a non-controversial piece of reportage by a travel writer mainly quoting local people in the Israeli village of Jisr az-Zarqa. It was published by the Mondoweiss web site.
The argument is, Mondoweiss is a blog and can never be used on Wikipedia, a position which has not been confirmed in the past by third parties examining what had developed into a modern web based news organization, under editorial control, and reflecting a wide variety of reportage and opinion.
On 2 occasions, the objecting editor replaced the source with sources he approves of, without altering the content. I argue that this itself testifies to the impression that the article has reliably reported what the people he interviewed remarked, and therefore can be used for things like villagers commuting for work in Haifa and Tel Aviv, a rather innocuous fact, but, in my view, not likely to be mentioned in multiple sources, given the obscurity of the village. Nishidani ( talk) 12:53, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
1. Maja Daruwala is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court and wrote about the Central Sati Act here [16] where she mentions history of action against the practice of Sati.
2. The article concerned is Sati (practice).
3. The content using the source are in the section about sati under the rule of the Delhi sultanate and the mughals. These are the passages using the source.
Under the Delhi Sultanate, permission had to be sought from the widow before any practice of sati as a check against compulsion. However, this later became more of a formality.
Mughal emperor Humayun (1508-1556) tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar (1542–1605) was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his chief police officers. The chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts, and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice.
JustBeCool ( talk) 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
At Whole30, this diet is being described as a "fad diet" in the first sentence based on two sources: a listicle in Health, and an article in Business Insider. Neither source refers to the Whole30 as a fad diet in the article itself. The subtitle of the Health listicle is "Take a lesson from this year's diet fads, fitness flubs, and expert-approved movements." The title of the Business Insider article is "Millennials are obsessed with Whole 30, the ‘cultish’ fad diet taking over Instagram and Pinterest." Is there any precedent for using article titles in this way? Safehaven86 ( talk) 03:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
It's obviously a fad diet and there are sources that point this obvious fact out. Wikipedia needs to say so too per WP:PSCI. Fringe stuff must be clearly identified as such. Alexbrn ( talk) 04:25, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
On the specific question made at the start - no, they cannot. I recall this issue being discussed a while ago (sorry, can't provide the actual link). It was pointed out that article titles and book titles, and especially tagline subtitles below the main title, are often not decided on by the author of the article, but are derived from an editorial or layout decision and are designed to be eye catching. If there is no actual content in the article or book reproducing the terms or claims used in the title, then these sources should not be cited as sources using those terms or containing those claims. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 15:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
Headlines in newspapers are written by headline writers whose primary task is to hook readers, As a result, headlines tend to overstate the "interesting bits" of any article, as readers of the Daily Mail can attest, or even readers of The Guardian. Better to find how the "interesting bit" is actually worded in the article than to give credence to the puffed headline. If "fad diet" is in the body of an article as fact, fine. If not, not. Collect ( talk) 19:26, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I want to know if UsaNews is considered a reliable source...— Preceding unsigned comment added by Juniorbeluzzo ( talk • contribs)
Does anyone know if bwf.tournamentsoftware.com is a reliable source? There are enarly 900 links, including things like this abomination: Claudia Rivero (how many links to one site can you get in an article?). Guy ( Help!) 10:58, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Interesting commentary from Prof. Ernst on the problem with Chinese studies: http://edzardernst.com/2016/10/data-fabrication-in-china-is-an-open-secret/
A recent survey of clinical trials in China has revealed fraudulent practice on a massive scale, according to a government investigation.
China's food and drug regulator recently carried out a one-year review of clinical trials, concluding that more than 80 percent of clinical data is "fabricated," state media reported.
That was for reality-based drugs, the problem is worse for quackery. Guy ( Help!) 11:01, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
Is Courthouse News Service a reliable source to cite regarding the lawsuit against Donald Trump and Jeffrey Epstein? I would like to get a consensus before making any more edits. 173.67.106.134 ( talk) 03:47, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
I can't find anything handily linkable on the problem with sourcing to Forbes - specifically, that they decided to trash their brand by running third-party blogs written by any old blogger under the "Forbes" brandname - they check the blogger is lucid first, but once they're in the stuff is just blog posts. People still can't quite believe that they actually do this and these are just blogs, not editorially-reviewed RSes, and I keep having to point this out. It really doesn't help that they put staff and print articles under forbes.com/blogs too.
(I can't find it now, but I remember an enlightening article from a freelancer who used to contribute to Forbes under her own name, but now makes ten times that ghosting corporate puff pieces that run on a Forbes blog URL.)
The approach I've tended to take is that anything under forbes.com/sites is just a blog, unless it specifically says "Forbes staff" or "From the print edition" (in which case it's Forbes as RS), and if the blogger is notable in the subject area it may be an RS blog.
Am I off base here? How do others approach the Forbes problem? - David Gerard ( talk) 09:23, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
Around 250 to 300 stories go up on the forbes site each day. ... No matter their background or compensation, all contributors can publish their own work without so much as a cursory edit.So as long as you have a contributor account, you can write whatever you want in your Forbes blog and it doesn't get edited or fact-checked before publication, which means it pretty clearly fails WP:RS standards. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 15:24, 30 September 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate additional attention to the article, where I was reverted twice due to the editor's insistence on using a Wehrmacht reenactment web site as a source for a citation. Please see: Talk:11th_Panzer_Division_(Wehrmacht)#11thpanzer.com. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
The reliability of this source is doubted on the talk page of Talk:Battle of Karbala. Can it be used?
Thanks. -- Mhhossein talk 07:05, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
"the Battle of Karbala took place within the crisis environment resulting from the succession of Yazid I,"a saying which is in accordance with stronger sources such as this one. -- Mhhossein talk 12:58, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
"Yazīd’s caliphate marked the beginning of the crisis, commonly referred to as fitna."So, this is not just my "claim". -- Mhhossein talk 13:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the following content reliably sourced? Other issues under policy?
On September 26, 2016, The Savage Nation was shut down nationwide while discussing concerns over Hillary Clinton's health and the possibility that she may be taking Levodopa to treat Parkinson's disease. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 20:04, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
I would appreciate another set of eyes on the article where an editor restored removed material stating that the web site is suitable to use as a source. Please see: Talk:Günther_Seeger#Recent edit. Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
This news article [1] in Pakistani newspaper Dawn reports on a high-level meeting between civilian and military authorities. Then it adds a denial by the government, titled "Clarification". Do I understand the WP:RS correctly that we still go by the newspaper report, despite the denial? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:12, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Addressing Gen Akhtar, the younger Sharif complained that whenever action has been taken against certain groups by civilian authorities, the security establishment has worked behind the scenes to set the arrested free.This would support a claim already made in the Jaish-e-Mohammed article (and contested) where an "unnamed official" was reported to have said similar things. -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 16:20, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
References
I don't know if this is the correct place to ask because it's not about the veracity of the source, but rather about whether a source should be used in a particular way.
The question is about whether an individual book entry on a list should be accompanied by a citation on the basis "it is the last known interview with the world-renowned author and gives his own opinion on this, his final work." Well, fair enough, I don't have a problem with incorporating significant information into the article and citing the source (and this is indeed done at another place in the article with the same source) but that isn't what it is being used for here. Using the source in this particular way just supports the existence of the book, which is self-citing anyway and the author's entire ouvre is now supported by a citation to the British library. So the question is a very simple one: does the citation benefit the article in the way it is used in the linked edit above? Betty Logan ( talk) 02:18, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
In examining what seem to be extraordinary claims in a News of Science article cited in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ruggero Santilli (2nd nomination):
"2016 FEB 7 (VerticalNews) -- By a News Reporter-Staff News Editor at News of Science -- Thunder Energies Corp (TNRG:OTC) has recently detected invisible entities in our terrestrial environment with the revolutionary Santilli telescope with concave lenses (Trade Mark and patent pending by Thunder Energies). Thunder Energies Corporation has previously presented confirmations of the apparent existence of antimatter galaxies, antimatter asteroids and antimatter cosmic rays detected in preceding tests. In this breaking news, Thunder Energies presents evidence for the existence of Invisible Terrestrial Entities (ITE) of the dark and bright type.
"This is an exciting discovery. We do not know what these entities are; they're completely invisible to our eyes, our binoculars, or traditional Galileo telescopes, but these objects are fully visible in cameras attached to our Santilli telescope," stated Dr. …"
I found that almost identical reports of this extraordinary claim could be found on Business Television, CNN Money, Yahoo! Finance, and YourNewsWire.com, among others. Should we consider these news outlets and the online business press reliable secondary sources of information after this? I ask because only the extraordinary nature of the claim made in these articles drew my attention to this issue. It's plausible that these and other business news outlets routinely add their bylines to whatever comes through PR Newswire and other online conduits for business press releases. This makes them potentially a routine WP:PRIMARY source of information.
is it plausible that an editor at CNN Money or Yahoo! Finance looked at that copy and decided to put their firm's byline on it? Either a "yes" or "no" answer to that points to a major problem with them and other business news sources that routinely use PR Newswire or other online conduits for corporate press releases as sources for information which they they byline locally to have it appear as though this is copy that's been written by a staff writer and reviewed by an editor. If there was editorial review on this story, it failed in what we'd think was a primary journalistic duty to report accurately, and pursue alternate sources of information on extraordinary or implausible claims made by companies on which they report.
I think there ought to be general guidance to editors in WP:RS to scrutinize claims made in the business press closely, or simply not to regard the online business press as an independent secondary source of information unless there is evidence that the specific article being cited differs enough from other articles on the same subject to show active authorship and editorial review at the site where the article is found. loupgarous ( talk) 22:46, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Is the conservative magazine National Review a RS in context for the following quote be included in the article Hillary Rodham cattle futures controversy?
On July 17, 1979, she had 115 contracts outstanding with a market value of $3.2 million. A 4 or 5 per cent adverse fluctuation, as occurred once or twice a month, in Clinton’s position would have constituted five times her annual income and five times her net worth. [1]
WP:BLPSOURCES does not require magazines with identifiable political leanings to be removed. WP:BIASED "Common sources of bias include political, financial, religious, philosophical, or other beliefs. Although a source may be biased, it may be reliable in the specific context. When dealing with a potentially biased source, editors should consider whether the source meets the normal requirements for reliable sources, such as editorial control and a reputation for fact-checking.” One of the co-authors of the article is a former professor of finance at UC Berkeley, so expertise. This isn't highly contentious material, also, just a simple calculation from publicly available material: Hillary’s trading records, the cattle futures market at the time, the Clintons’ salary and net worth from pubic released information. There are lots of RSs saying similar things about the size of her exposure relative to the Clintons net wort at the time. The NR quote that I want to include is only the most detailed and would illustrate the facts best. Newsweek: The editor of the Journal of Futures Markets said in April 1994, "This is like buying ice skates one day and entering the Olympics a day later. She took some extraordinary risks."[2] Yet Mrs. Clinton took surprisingly large positions in cattle futures, earning one-day profits as high as $30,000. Had the market moved the other way, she could have lost huge amounts virtually overnight, according to market specialists. http://articles.latimes.com/1994-03-31/news/mn-40520_1_hillary-clinton another RS talking about the size of hillary’s risk https://books.google.com/books?id=NIIVeirctosC&pg=PA218 She acquired 50 new cattle contracts – worth $1.4 million -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/stories/wwtr940527.htm NPalgan2 ( talk) 05:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
References
I need clarification on some issues. The article Iru Sagodharigal has link to google drive. Can such link consider as a reliable link/source? If the owner delete the file, it might be dead link. The link is for scan document of book that has songs of a film. It was published by a press that has no authority with film production and copyright. Similar such song books are publish in India and Sri Lanka. I feel it not fit with WP:RS. If anyone of you take action of article and inform user, I could do in future patrol. BTW, please share any link or discussion that could satisfy my question. Thanks. -- Antan O 07:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
1. Maja Daruwala is an advocate practicing in the Delhi High Court and wrote about the Central Sati Act here [22] where she mentions history of action against the practice of Sati.
2. The article concerned is Sati (practice).
3. The content using the source are in the section about sati during the rule of the Delhi sultanate and the mughals. These are the passages that are citing the source.
Under the Delhi Sultanate, permission had to be sought from the widow before any practice of sati as a check against compulsion. However, this later became more of a formality.
Mughal emperor Humayun (1508-1556) tried, but withdrew a royal fiat against Sati. Akbar (1542–1605) was next to issue official general orders prohibiting sati and insisted that no woman could commit sati without the specific permission of his chief police officers. The chief police officers were instructed by him to delay the woman's decision for as long as possible. Pensions, gifts, and rehabilitative help were offered to the potential sati to persuade her from committing the act. Children were strictly forbidden from the practice.
JustBeCool ( talk) 23:54, 2 October 2016 (UTC)
The references in the article on
Microwave volumetric heating seem to exist mostly of press releases by organizations and universities involved in the commercial development of the technique and the company that offers it, AMT. Also, the article tells a lot about why this technique is supposed to be so great, supported by these references, but offers little encyclopaedic content on how it actually works, as I noted on the article's talk page. I am wondering whether the article should be tagged with {{
Advert}}
or {{
External links}}
and subsequently rewritten. (
Current revision) --
IByte (
talk) 11:33, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
Not an academic source this time, but I wonder if Matthew Paris is a reliable source for contemporary events in the 1250s, specifically the ones he's quoted for in User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/1257 Samalas eruption - Iridescent did give a cautionary note on this on his ( User talk:Iridescent) user talk page. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 18:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
I was editing the Charlie Clouser article when I noticed that, aside from the cited claim I added, there were only three citations in the article. I removed one of them because it came from IMDB, which certainly isn't reliable. The other two citations (which are still in the article) come from a website called SoundtrackNet. Is this site reliable in any way? Because judging from the layout of the site, it appears very amateurish to me. Should the citations be removed? Dark Knight 2149 23:49, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Is there a policy reason why all lulu.com sources should be deleted on sight? Without per source, or per-use review? Andy Dingley ( talk) 23:53, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
There are currently in excess of 2,000 links to lulu.com in Wikipedia articles. Lulu is a vanity press, a self-publishing outfit, and has no editorial oversight. The majority of links I find to lulu.com seem to me to be clearly inapporpriate: opinions by non-notable individuals, claims made without the benefit of independent fact-checking and so on. The links are often, but far from always, redundant.
Blurb: "Ten years after the death of Princess Diana, the cover-up of the century is blown apart. Thoroughly researched by a private detective and investigative journalist. The full shocking truth of the involvement of British intelligence in the 'accidental' death of one of the 20th Century's leading icons. The Lying Game is exposed!". So: Self-published conspiracist nutjobbery. Guy ( Help!) 18:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
It seems there is little expressed disagreement on policy - both Andy and Guy recognize that Lulu publications are WP:SPS and therefore may be used in some contexts, but not others - and so the real issue here is procedure. Should all Lulu sources now be removed, and in the few cases where those sources were merited, they can be brought back by concerned editors? Or should editors removing Lulu sources check each source before deleting?
While obviously procedure will follow some kind of middle course, I would tend towards the second option. This proposed template deletion and the comments therein are a good example of why: blindly bulldozing references without consulting their merits disrupts the hard work that others have put into properly sourcing some articles. It is no more appropriate to delete all Lulu books than it is to delete every WP:SPS on the encyclopedia and hope that other editors reinstate the (tens, hundreds of thousands of) good sources.
Guy, if you want to find bad sources by following Lulu links, that's great, but it's fair to ask you to look at what you're deleting. - Darouet ( talk) 00:41, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
I have not been on this page for a long time, so please bare with me. I am asking the communities opinion of a online source found here. Its original source, in printed format, does not appear to be clearly stated, and was added with this edit to the article Asian American movement. Is this a reliable source, or is it user generated content?-- RightCowLeftCoast ( talk) 05:49, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I'm working on the Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations article and have an interesting article published on Dan Abrams's site LawNewz that would be great to use. Specifically, the information that is helpful is that there is no federal statute of limitations on the Jane Doe case - and other points about the viability of the case.
Based on his background as an attorney and legal analyst / journalist, I thought he might be a reliable source, but want to check here. I did a search of RSN and did not find a previous posting for LawNewz. Its editorial staff is mentioned here. Would you consider LawNewz a reliable source?
Because of sensitive NPOV and BLP issues, we want to ensure that we're verifying that our sources are reliable sources. Thanks so much!-- CaroleHenson (talk) 18:02, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
boxofficedetail
The findings of CMD's investigative journalism are regularly cited by the leading national and state newspapers in the U.S., including the New York Times, the Guardian, and the Washington Post. CMD's reporting is credited by news shows on major broadcast stations including HBO, Showtime, PBS, NBC, CBS, and others, and has also been featured on in-depth news programs, such as Moyers & Company, Democracy Now, and the Thom Hartmann Show, as well as NPR and other public broadcasting agencies, such as the BBC and CBC.
Is this a reliable source for the death year of Trần Văn Đôn? The site seems to be similar to Sports Reference, which is usually an accepted source for biographical information of athletes. EternalNomad ( talk) 02:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
The Findagrave guide says not to use it as a reference if " it is a circular reference to Wikipedia". However, a user is deleting all references to Findagrave and even deleting the cemetery information from the text because it is derived from Findagrave, even when the information comes from a photograph of the tombstone. See this change for example, and then see their user contributions where they have done the same to over 100 biographies. Should this be occurring? -- Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) ( talk) 15:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
"An appraisal on Saturday about Walter Cronkite’s career included a number of errors. In some copies, it misstated the date that the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. was killed and referred incorrectly to Mr. Cronkite’s coverage of D-Day. Dr. King was killed on April 4, 1968, not April 30. Mr. Cronkite covered the D-Day landing from a warplane; he did not storm the beaches. In addition, Neil Armstrong set foot on the moon on July 20, 1969, not July 26. “The CBS Evening News” overtook “The Huntley-Brinkley Report” on NBC in the ratings during the 1967-68 television season, not after Chet Huntley retired in 1970. A communications satellite used to relay correspondents’ reports from around the world was Telstar, not Telestar. Howard K. Smith was not one of the CBS correspondents Mr. Cronkite would turn to for reports from the field after he became anchor of “The CBS Evening News” in 1962; he left CBS before Mr. Cronkite was the anchor. Because of an editing error, the appraisal also misstated the name of the news agency for which Mr. Cronkite was Moscow bureau chief after World War II. At that time it was United Press, not United Press International."
The question regarding photographs is a bit more interesting than y'all are making it out to be though, IMO. Let's think about this.
We use countless thousands of photographs (most of them hosted on Commons, FWIW) where the photograph provides information about the subject and the only -- the only -- verification for this is some random (usually anonymous!) person's say-so: "Photograph of St Basil's Cathedral in Novgorod. Own Work. Uploaded by photographer".
On one level, this is ridiculous. Why can we present an image as "own work" and not a paragraph of text? They are very similar things. We don't publish a paragraph of text "St Basil's Cathedral is a large white building, three stories, with seven gold-covered domes, etc. etc." sourced to <ref>I was there and I saw it myself</ref>, right? Yet we publish a photo with the same info and essentially the same level of sourcing.
On another level, it's not ridiculous at all. It works -- vandalism via faking a photo is rare I believe -- and even though it doesn't follow our theory it works in practice. So as a matter of de facto practice, photographs are specially privileged here and always have been (and there are various good reasons for this. For one thing, it takes much more effort and skill to fake a photo, more time and skill than the average vandal cares to apply.)
So here's a question: I can take and upload a photo of St Basil's Cathedral, and put it in an article. We all agree I can, it's common practice. So can I not take and upload a photo of St Basil's Cathedral and (if for some reason I preferred to) use it to ref a text description of the entity instead putting the photo in the article? (Assume the text description limited itself to blue-sky facts clearly seen in the photo, so that interpretation is not an issue.) It's an interesting question! I can't see why not.
So how is my taking a photo of gravestone different? Yes in theory I could have the wrong gravestone (just as, in theory, I could have mistaken St Basil's Cathedral for a different one). Yes in theory I could be deliberately vandalizing by taking a photo of a wrong gravestone on purpose, or photoshopping it (just as, in theory, I could do the same with St Basil's Cathedral). But in practice, this is vanishingly unlikely, as recognized by the fact that I can do this per our common practice.
So... how is a photo at FindAGrave different -- and worse -- than one I take myself? Yes the person could be wrong. Yes the person could be a photoshopping troll. Either is vanishingly unlikely, and if we eliminate sources that are vanishingly unlikely to be wrong, we must eliminate the New York Times and every other source and be left with nothing.
It's perfectly reasonable to use photographs (and just photographs) from FindAGrave as references. Herostratus ( talk) 18:55, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Hello reliable sources experts. I came across an article which had a reference to billboard.biz ( this one). I tried to look up billboard.biz in Wikipedia, but it redirects to Billboard, which makes no mention of it. Often .biz sites are full of press releases and profiles written by closely connected sources. Can anyone tell me if billboard.biz is a reliable independent source? — Anne Delong ( talk) 16:28, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
User Ghinozzi-nissim ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has recently added a very large number of entries to "further reading", all using the same edit summary, all tot he same book, Dye, David. Child and Youth Actors: Filmography of Their Entire Careers, 1914-1985. Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., 1988. This is suspicious, IMO, but is this a RS? Guy ( Help!) 17:34, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
The emphasis rests on acting credits; the scant biographical information is inconsistent and inadequately researched. Unfortunately, the filmographies suffer the same problem. Many credits are missing... There are some photos but no references to them are found in the entries... Dye's work has too many holes to stand on its own.I'd say it would be useful only with caution, if at all. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 17:40, 16 October 2016 (UTC)
Under Policies for Hillary Clinton her point of view is different. A cited source is not accurate or credible when It is from a SuperPAC. Source 457, 458, 459, 460, 461, 462, 464, 469, 475. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Clinton_email_controversy
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/8452
https://wikileaks.org/podesta-emails/emailid/5928
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_of_Marriage_Act
Interesting article here: [24] - references IGI Global as a vanity press, pretty much as expected. Guy ( Help!) 21:07, 17 October 2016 (UTC)
References
Relevant discussion on the article's talk page TMZ -- does this belong? Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 03:59, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
I know this has been discussed in the past [26] but wanted to revisit the reliability of Vote Smart, specifically in regards to politicians' voting records. The site claims to provide "free, factual, unbiased information on candidates and elected officials". The source is currently being discussed on Joe Heck's talk page. Thanks! Meatsgains ( talk) 14:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'm having difficulty determining whether http://pulse.com.gh and http://ghanaweb.com are mainstream news sources with professional journalistic standards, particularly in respect of "celebrity news". These two websites are the only sources cited in a new BLP draft at AFC - Draft:Elaine Attoh. If these websites are ok it solves a significant potential issue for the draft. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 14:37, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I am currently editing an article about the new Doom to make it reach the GA-class, but GA reviewer Cognissonance is not sure about the reliability of Tom's Hardware as used in this passage in the article:
"The CEO of id Software, Todd Hollenshead, suggested that, like Doom II: Hell on Earth, it would take place on Earth..."
Is it a reliable source, or should it be removed?
Gamingforfun365
(talk) 15:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This is about [27], wherein Emmisgood has reverted my edit claiming that a book published by the University of California Press would be unreliable. Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:32, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So, there are two reliable sources making the same claim:
I have reverted his/her edit based upon verifying the information to both sources. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Articles about the authors: Bryan R. Wilson, Peter Clarke (historian) and Massimo Introvigne. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:47, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
So:
I don't see why these two sources would be unreliable to make the claim, certainly there is no Wikipedia requirement of peer-review for books. I certainly find that "- Edit of Tgeorgescu from 22-Oct-16 Undone as it expresses an undocumented personal opinion and/or interpretation of both the editor and the referenced publication. The referenced publication notes no validated or peer reviewed sources for the authors statement, which again reflects an opinion and/or personal perception" is a spurious reason and it is contrary to WP:PAG. Also, that editor may have a conflict of interest in respect to the article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 17:56, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Please note that the sources mentioned above are the only independent sources from the whole article. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:26, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Background information: the Message of the Grail claims that Jesus Christ has spread the Word of God in cryptic parables and just before the Final Judgment Abd-ru-shin has brought the Word of God in plaintext, in order to save human souls. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 18:33, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Just taking at face value that Peter Clarke was the editor of that encyclopedia, it does have editorial control. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:59, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, Emmisgood has displayed particularly bad editorial judgment at [28], falling for a source contrary to both WP:CIRCULAR and WP:SPS. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 21:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The question: Is this primary source reliable enough to state that "As of 2012, 99% of physical therapy programs were teaching spine manipulation in the United States." at the spinal manipulation article. Thanks 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:10CE:C4B8:714A:FA5 ( talk) 03:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
2001:56A:75B7:9B00:5126:F27E:3621:D9FC ( talk) 04:15, 20 October 2016 (UTC)