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 215 | Archive 216 | Archive 217 | Archive 218 | Archive 219 | Archive 220 | → | Archive 225 |
The article Central Park jogger case has a series of "facts" in the "Arrests, interrogations, and confessions" section that are reported in our voice that are taken from a The Daily Beast source authored by Edward Conlon. This article must be free of bias, I'm sure all would agree. The lives of five boys/men were severely affected by this incident and we need to be very careful not to add to that. I looked up "The Daily Beast" here and did not come up with anything for certain. The news article seems to be an opinion piece...? I would greatly appreciate input. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This is about [2]. I consider the main source unreliable. The Brill source is a red herring, since it is employed for a very bland claim, it does not verify most of the claims made. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hutchison's books are either WP:SPS or published by a very marginal publishing house (vanity press or fringe publisher). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the use of GQ as a source for Generation Snowflake is taking place at Talk:Generation Snowflake#RFC - Source #1: GQ Magazine. Input from contributors with expertise about sourcing is welcome. Thank you, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am considering using the following article to add information on the subject of Wahhabism and wanted to know if it is considered a reliable source:
The article is written by Professor Michael Sells of the University of Chicago so I have no doubt about the authors credentials, however the article in question is published by the Huffington Post and as far as I am aware this falls short for being an RS. Can somebody clarify? Thanks MontyKind ( talk) 08:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Based on the above I will use this article as a source. MontyKind ( talk) 08:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I apologize in advance if this type of question has already been brought up either on this noticeboard or some other aspect/essay on Wikipedia. I have done a lot of work on the article Kyra, which is about a fictional character from the television show Charmed. It passed a GA review back in June, and I was thinking about bringing it to FAC sometime in the future (most likely the somewhat distant future as I have a rather long list of articles I would like to bring to FAC). My question about the reliable sources concerns the following two sources: 1) https://charmedcomicfan10.jimdo.com and 2) Tumblr.
I cited these two sources specifically in the context of interviews with the creators of the Charmed comic books as they discuss the development and appearances of the character. I believe that they are reliable in this context (I know it is dubious to use information from a fan website and/or social media, but I would think it would be permissible in the context of interviews). For a point of reference, here is a link to one of the interviews that I cited in the article: 1.
I was wondering if these two sources are appropriate for use on here and if the sources would be deemed okay if brought up in an FAC? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil#Reliable source.3F, is this a reliable source please? I'm trying to expand Castro Barbosa. Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 23:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
We have often used reliable sources by certain authors, which have reviews that attest to their merit. But some editors have suggested that an author's works are now unreliable, because of their subsequent non-conventional "beliefs", eg:
Do we (a) require sources that confirm that the original works are now unreliable, or (b) is this just the personal opinion of editors based on an Association fallacy? In other words, can editors over-ride existing reliable sources without requiring sources, despite WP:TALK#FACTS? -- Iantresman ( talk) 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
To expand a bit on this, there are questions as they relate to WP:FRIND as to what constitutes a truly "independent" source. This is also seen in WP:Independent sources, for example. To determine notability, it is worthwhile to look for independent sources which attest to the importance of a particular subject. That is the sense in which Bauer's book on Velikovsky is being promoted (as a notability test, not a reliability test).
To be clear, I, the AfD nominator for the journals that are being obliquely referred to here, have no objection whatsoever about using Bauer's book as a reliable source in the appropriate context anywhere in Wikipedia. But I strongly object to the use of his book as an indicator of independent notability for a fringe journal. This is due to Bauer's advocacy of fringe journals and pseudoscience. He is attracted to these subjects as a matter of POV against the mainstream scientific community. This is a perfectly fine perspective to take and it is somewhat prominently described in his Wikipedia biography, for example, but Wikipedia needs to make decisions about notability of articles that are not tied to fringe perspectives because to do otherwise would cause us to be unable to adhere to WP:NPOV. jps ( talk) 19:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Swedish expo.se for reliably and neutrally determining the exact ideology of the nationalist Party of the Danes as being Nazism (which is a disputed matter)?
There are several issues to consider. Expo.se is pretending to be a neutral research organization. Expo Foundation was established by the far-leftist author Stieg Larsson. He was the Expo magazine's co-founder and editor-in-chief until his death. Former "chief-of-research" Tobias Hübinette was an AFA member, anarcho-syndicalist and convicted criminal. One member of this Expo organization stated that "Marxism is science and a doctrine of ideas." Expo's stated goals are to research intolerance, racism and right-wing extremism. Expo is created and managed by known far left figures and solely critizing certain right wing elements.
Does that qualify as a reliable source for ensuring an NPOV documentation of the Party of the Danes being a Nazi party? -- ContraVentum ( talk) 15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Please let others write. It is as usual not "the more uou write the more right you are", but sources that counts. Adville ( talk) 10:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
AWDnews is in the headlines for running a fake news story which nearly started a nuclear war between pakistan and israel. I think that may disqualify them as a reliable source. i found 3 usages of them on WP ( [4], [5], [6]), and i removed them as they were NOT critical, but i would love to see them blacklisted. this site says they are unreliable. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Shinola shoe polish brand is connected in the USA with a saying, "You don't know shit from Shinola." Like any popular saying, this one has appeared in a variety of media. At Shinola (shoe polish) there is an "in popular culture" consisting mostly, but not entirely, of such examples.
The standards for sourcing popular culture examples have been discussed in an RfC. That RfC determined that both accuracy and cultural significance are relevant when sourcing IPC examples, and secondary sources are preferred to establish the latter. These conclusions were incorporated into the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content essay. I have attempted to remove examples from the Shinola article in accordance with the sourcing standards established in those documents. 7&6=thirteen ( talk · contribs) has indiscriminately reverted my changes, accused me of edit warring, and insisted on de novo discussion of the same question that was discussed in the RfC. This user has also added more examples cited only to primary sources or sources of questionable reliability, such as this YouTube channel that has no particular editorial transparency.
I request opinions at the article talk page on the appropriateness of my edits and 7&6=thirteen's edits with respect to the RfC, as well as general Wikipedia norms on reliable sourcing and the removal/preservation of non-biographical material that has questionable sourcing. 24.7.14.87 ( talk) 21:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Is medicaldaily.com a reliable source?
Benjamin ( talk) 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated in the talk page of the Sati article. The sources being used for some of the disputed material form an important component of the dispute. Please comment on the article talk page if this topic interests you. Soham321 ( talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently in the midst of a discussion on Talk:Tel Dan Stele (extending to other related articles, ie Merneptah Stele) involving sources. I attempted to add a source for the phrase "The Tel Dan stele is one of four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel, the others being the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith." The source was as follows: [1] At first, another editor on the page said the source contradicted the existing source. When it was pointed out that it doesn't, the editor then cursed me out and said the source was "irrelevant". The editor's objections are puzzling to me, claiming that "The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël" is "irrelevant" because "the only reference to the name Israel is referring to a combination of three sources at the same time", which even as a semantic argument seems to not make sense. We already know for a fact that the first three documents listed (along with the fourth) all independently mention Israel, and the other editor knows that as well, so it's unclear why that argument is being made. To me, these are clearly reliable sources that support the text, but I'm hoping to get a third opinion. (Please note that "Shalmaneser III of Assyria"/"Assyrian royal annals" = Kurkh Monoliths) Drsmoo ( talk) 04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
References
The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël in the mid—9th century, and the continuity of settlement back to the early Iron Age suggests that the establishment of a sedentary identity should be associated with this population, whatever their origin. In the mid—14th century, the Amarna letters mention no Israël, nor any of the biblical tribes, while the Merneptah stele places someone called Israël in hill-country Palestine toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. The language and material culture of emergent Israël show strong local continuity, in contrast to the distinctly foreign character of early Philistine material culture.
I keep finding Crunchbase used as a ref in articles, especially about young companies, to source information about funding the company has raised. (Like, "In 2009 StartupZ raised $10M from MoneyBags Ventures") I checked the RSN archives and do not see that Crunchbase has been questioned before.
A wikilink to the description of Crunchbase in Wikipedia is above, and here is the site itself. (and here fwiw, is a quora question about it.)
As you can see at the site, anybody can register an account, and add or change data. At its about page, you can see that Crunchbase says that (as of the time I am looking at it) it has 299,000 contributors who have made 5.4 million edits. They also have 2,900 "Venture partners" who apparently are funders who add content about funding they do.
Crunchbase says they have paid staff that reviews everything. (See here).
However there appears to be an issue with regard to WP:USERGENERATED and it seems to me that we should not consider Crunchbase reliable.
Separately, even if the community says it is reliable to source content about funds raised, it seems to me Crunchbase should never be used in a Notability discussion, because a company can add its own information there and create the reference.
Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 04:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please vote on it if the topic is of interest to you. Soham321 ( talk) 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I invite anyone to participate in this RfC regarding the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles. These tables show which airlines fly to an airport, as well as the cities they fly to from the airport. They exist on the perhaps hundreds of airport articles on Wikipedia, so I would like to establish proper consensus on this issue. One possible issue with these tables has to do with how they are referenced. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ ( háblame • my work) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor is adding content to this article citing the source "FoxFlash publicity" ( this is the website), but the content can only be verified by logging into the website and only if you have press credentials (if you work in the film/TV industry). I'm wondering if this is acceptable as a source? Thank you. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Is [10] a reliable source for the following paragraph from Syed Shahid (singer)?
Syed Shaidul Islam ( Bengali: সৈয়দ শহীদুল ইসলাম) was born in Chittagong. He was raised in the port city of Chittagong where he learned lesson of music and playing harmonium from Soumyo Didi. But none of his family members liked music so he practiced to sing secretly. Shahid got his first recognition in singing when he was a student of Al Khan High School. At that time he won the first prize in inter district 'Nazrul' song competition. Afterwords he learned music from 'Shilpokola Academy' when he was a student of Chittagong City College. Singer Syed Shahid formed a music band named 'Lohitto' when he was a graduate student in the department of Economics of Chittagong University. Therefore he came in Dhaka. In 2004 he formed the band Doorbin with Sabbir and Noyon.
The affirmative view is held by Nayeem Hossain, the editor using this as a source and as evidence of notability. On their talk page they give the trenchant, policy-based, explanation of their reasoning: "Yes. www.bdalltime.com is a reliable source."
My own evaluation is that the website (also styled as Bangladeshi Entertainment) has none of the characteristics of a reliable source. It has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is not commonly quoted by reliable sources, and tends heavily toward promotional opinion and rumor. The site's About Us starts with "Hi readers & visitors! I am Dhorbin Islam the founder, CEO & author of Bangladeshi Entertainment blog." -- Worldbruce ( talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone who speaks Spanish please check out poderopedia and let me know if it is a reliable source? I would err on the side of 'no', but just want to double-check. I'd like to translate this and they seem to have his bio, but I may not be able to cite it. Otherwise we may need to find obituaries from 1991, but in Spanish, in published in the Chilean press (not easy to find!). Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia, tweets are most of the time not reliable unless WP:TWITTER or WP:SPS. However, there is a discussion going on the Street Fighter V talk page. It's about an organization called "Evo". One of the co-founder tweets about the number of registrants on his own tournament on his own Twitter account. I'm pretty sure that this is not reliable because nobody can actually verify whether this is true nor is the tweet an official statement from the organization "Evo" itself. But a game magazine called "Polygon" which is usually reliable (but certainly not always) wrote a small article about this using the tweet as a source. Now, even though they have editorial staff, I'm pretty sure that they haven't verified the statement themselves nor did they wrote anything about verifying it in the article itself. Polygon assumes that the tweet is true, which is already something that is not accepted by the rules that Wikipedia has. Note: At the bottom of the article, Polygon literally states: "SOURCE: Joey Cuellar on Twitter". So my question: Isn't it obvious that any article that solely uses a tweet (without verification) as a source can be considered unreliable?
Link of Polygon article: http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/1/12080396/evo-2016-breaks-records-total-number-players Link of Tweet: https://twitter.com/MrWiz/status/748775258828578817 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 20:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be quoted instead of stating it as a fact? The tweet is talking about the organization "Evo". If Wikipedia takes every tweet of every employer of a company as a fact, then it's impossible to form an accurate factual article. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Look, nobody knows if that's the real amount of registrants. A co-founder can write whatever he wants about his company as long as it's positive for the company itself. Yes, it's covered by Polygon, but they don't have the verification that Wikipedia needs. Polygon simply reasoned like this: "The tweet is from a co-founder of Evo. So it's probably true.". That's the only verification it did. The author did not said anything about other verifications. But that verification is not valid by Wikipedia.
So if a reliable source writes an article based on a tweet of an employer of company X. Then we can just put that on Wikipedia (as a fact) without additional verification. Did I get that right? 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
So yes, like I said. Anything that a reliable source (like Polygon) says or writes about can be considered a fact on Wikipedia ? Also, you said that the *only* people that would know how many people registered for SFV would be EVO themselves. Then, how can Polygon fact-check that statement of the co-founder? I'm really not trying to be nitpicky, really. It's just a bit confusing. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 23:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you are not very friendly for newcomers, huh. The argument is that the co-founder can say whatever he wants. But fine, I agree to disagree since I don't want to waste my time with someone who is not willing to explain why my argument is not valid. No wonder Wikipedia has a shortage of editors. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am currently dealing with an article I wrote and it was AfD I think too soon. Since then, I tried to do what the nominator asked me to do in order to improve the article and avoid to delete it. I provided new reliable references because this was the matter for the deletion and I found them via FACTIVA DOW JONES. Most of the references provided from newspaper such New York Times, La Vanguardia, Agencia EFE, St. Petersburg Time, and so, but when I resubmitted the draft I got a message from the user who declined the draft first telling that the sources are not good enough for "our"policies. Here you can find some of the sources because I totally disagree with this argument with Draft:Ramzi_Maqdisi.
Ramzi Maqdisi (Arabic: رمزي مقدسي; born 1980; Jerusalem) is a Palestinian filmmaker and film and theater actor known for Solomon's Stone,[1] Omar,[2] [3]The Attack[4][5][6][7][8] and Love, Theft and Other Entanglements.[9][10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
References
Full of teasing allusions to his past and boasting a striking performance by his wife of 25 years, Venus in Fur may not be Polanski's most cinematically audacious work. But it has a deceptive complexity and teasing sophistication that make its shifting power games all the more compelling and provocative. ... Two years later, senior Palestinian leader Ramzi Maqdisi tracks Bakri down and asks what he remembers about Hoorani's death. Bakri feigns ignorance when he asks where Bisharat got the money to marry Lubany and shows no...
The movie, written by Mr. Doueiri and his wife, Joëlle Touma, retains much of what's good in the book, including Amin's forced confrontation with the past, which begins the night he's called back to the hospital where he works. Minutes later, he is standing in a morgue and pulling a sheet off the mangled corpse of his wife, Siham (Reymonde Amsellem)... WITH: Ali Suliman (Amin), Reymonde Amsellem (Siham), Evgenia Dodina (Kim), Uri Gavriel (Captain Moshe), Karim Saleh (Adel), Dvir Benedek (Raveed), Ruba Salameh (Faten) and Ramzi Maqdisi (the Priest).
Director Ziad Doueiri (C) and actors Ramzi Maqdisi (L), Ali Suliman (2nd R) and Karim Saleh pose during a photocall following the screening of "The Attack" on the fifth day of the San Sebastian Film Festival September 25, 2012. The film is part of the festival's Official Section.
El director de origen libanés, Ziad Doueiri, presentó hoy en la 60 edición del Festival Internacional de Cine de San Sebastián, "The Attack", película que trata sobre el peligro de un ciudadano palestino de vivir en la ciudad israelí de Tel Aviv. ...Otro de los intérpretes del filme, Ramzi Maqdisi, expresó que "no buscamos cambiar el mundo con estas películas, pero queremos expresar lo que siente un ser humano allí".
The film, which won top prize at the Rio de Janeiro Film Festival, is the story of a circus performer's attempted reconciliation with his family's past ...Al-Hob wa Al-Sariqa wa Mashakel Ukhra (Love, Theft and Other Entanglements) – Palestinian Territories By Muayad Alayan With Sami Metwasi, Maya Abu Alhayyat, Riyad Sliman, Ramzi Maqdisi, Kamel Elbasha World premiere
Please, I need to know if the new references provided are reliable, and if they don't, please tell what kind of sources are really good enough. I'm asking for help to improve the draft through the sources. Thank you very much in advance for assisting me. Parauleira ( talk) 09:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I recently came across this website, and while looking it up here to check for information about it, I found it used as a source on several pages, like Scarlett Montanaro and Dave Rosin. Allowing this as a source doesn't seem like a good idea. The bios seem to be taken from old versions of Wikipedia articles and other sites, including other wikis, and it has a lot of weird stuff, like letting users vote on what they think a celebrity's sexuality is and allowing users to set their net worth. SonOfPlisskin ( talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
At the Geraldine Ferraro article there is currently a dispute about whether this piece by Murray Rothbard and published by LewRockwell.com can be considered a reliable source for characterizations of Ferraro and Elizabeth Holtzman, two New York politicians who got into a bitter Democratic Party primary battle in 1992. I say no, while the other editor, @ JoshDonaldson20:, implicitly says yes by adding this material three times into the article (in the most recent case, leaving out one use of the Rothbard piece but still reinserting the other).
My case for "no" is that Rothbard is a highly opinionated writer, LewRockwell.com is a highly opinionated political site that often verges into conspiracy theories, and the article in question is obviously highly non-neutral, as can be seen from its opening: "Joy oh joy! Hosanna! It would be difficult to pick, out of an all-too-jammed field, the most repellent politician in American life, but surely Elizabeth Holtzman would run anyone a very close race for that honor. Tough, dour, butch, pencil-thin, and ultra-left, Liz Holtzman has been plaguing New Yorkers, and Americans in general, for many years." And it goes on from there. To me this isn't even close to being an RS, but I seem to be unable to convince the other editor of this, whom I have pinged in this post.
What say the folks here? Wasted Time R ( talk) 18:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I've found the article List of United States cities by percentage of white population which draws on IndexMundi as its only source at present; the sited page is http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/cities/rank/white-population-percentage. I'm not concerned here with that article so much as what I found while looking at IndexMundi. The about page states "IndexMundi is a data portal that gathers facts and statistics from multiple sources and turns them into easy to use visuals." However, I've been unable to find a systematic set of information on where the data for any particular visualization comes from. Now, I could infer that the information cited for the noted article here comes from the 2010 US general census, but inferring that and seeing a clear specification of how the data visualization was arrived at are two very different things. What do you think? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
(Please note: readers will need to google the article in question. The Daily News blocks linkage to its articles, and I don't know how to circumvent it) It's been alleged that the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, because it is a tabloid—specifically that "Soccer Rat! The inside story of how Chuck Blazer, ex-U.S. soccer executive and FIFA bigwig, became a confidential informant for the FBI," from 1 November 2014 can't be used as a source for Chuck Blazer. The specific fact in question is how Blazer 'flipped.' I contend that the News's reporting is reliable, despite its over the top style. There's strong documentation, including official documents. The NYTimes saw fit to quote the Daily News account of the encounter verbatim. Comments please. Tapered ( talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Is the King Faisal International Prize website ( http://kfip.org/en) reliable for biographical information? I am dubious as the organisation has commended people such as the Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and the Islamist Syed Abul Ala Maudidi.
I was wondering - can SFF Audio be seen as a reliable source here on Wikipedia? I've seen them around quite a bit and I do see where they get name dropped every now and again. They're mentioned in this Dummies book and their reviews do get put in book praise sections like this one by Galaxy Press. There's also some mention here, on the website for LibriVox. This mention from SF Signal bodes well for the site too, since the founder of SF Signal, John DeNardo, mentions that he regularly takes news and other tidbits from there - and the SF Signal is definitely seen as a RS for reviews and news. (Despite it being now closed, its stuff is still up on the Internet at this point in time.)
Do you guys think that SFF Audio could be seen as a RS on here? It's not a fly by night, they have a set staff, and they aren't a marketing outfit, meaning that they like to promote stuff that interests them but they aren't selling their services or out to promote everyone that sends them an inquiry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The bulk of the content on Islamic Human Rights Commission seems to have the organization's own website as its source. I have deleted some of the examples and tagged some of the content - but I am unsure as to how far to go with this. FOr example, if some of the organization's activities are entirely unreported except through the organization's own website, is its website a valid source to use, and if not, meaning the material will be unsourced, are such activities notable enough for inclusion in an article? And are quotes from press releases or response statements issued by the organization valid material for article inclusion if they remain unreported by any RS media outlet? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 22:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a very web 1.0 site with a good deal of what looks like opinion. Is it a reliable source? There are an enormous number of links on Wikipedia. Guy ( Help!) 17:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
From the above, we have:
That suggests ot me that whatever editorial oversight they have, is fundamentally broken, and thus the site is not a WP:RS. Guy ( Help!) 10:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is a link to an RfC that relates to reliable sources: Talk:Banjica concentration camp#RfC about the use of Cohen's Serbia's Secret War Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently working on improving the " Gliese 581 g" article, and I used the following source in the article's infobox: [18]. This is the diff: [19]. At first, I thought it was perfectly fine to use the Daily Mail as a source since it is the second largest daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, but after doing some further research about it, it turns out that the Daily Mail has been criticized for racism, homophobia, and printing false stories. Therefore, I would like to know what the community thinks about the reliability of this source. — MartinZ02 ( talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It's really really really bad" He doesn't seem to like them, no. I'm sure it's nothing personal -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not aware of what "racist" or "homophobic" implications could arise from the discovery of a planet 20 light years away - is there a disturbing rampant pink hue to it perhaps (or, worse still, a rainbow colored one), or have the astronomers detected it is full of bearded fanatics just waiting to make the long interstellar journey to Europe? Unless the Daily Mail has a hidden part ownership of the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, this newspaper is not the source of the story (and the article actually cites something called "Discovery News" as its source). Stop using this noticeboard as an excuse to make stupid and juvenile off-topic attacks on the Daily Mail (or to indulge in deceptive wikilinking using piping - should Hillbillyholiday editing be checked for similar violations in article content?). The Daily Mail is obviously not a suitable source for facts in contentious science-related subjects, but the OP has not asked that - in fact, they seem to be asking spurious questions for dubious motives. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 12:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Is this draft a reliable source for this section of the article? Mainly the allegations of raping prisoners. Thanks.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
28. In many countries, women’s political activism has given rise to arrests and detentions. A recent report on the Islamic Republic of Iran refers to interviews with former women prisoners of conscience who were arrested for a number of reasons, including political affiliation, which can include affiliation with political opposition, women’s rights activists, student bodies, NGOs, members or defenders of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community or defenders of the rights of religious minorities; individual activities related to journalism, the media, blogging and human rights advocacy; participation in demonstrations or other forms of activism; religious crimes, including affiliation with unrecognized minorities; and violations pertaining to laws linked to dress codes (hijab).48
Kazemita1 ( talk) 12:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
38. A recent study uncovered cases of rape of female political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the 1980s, including the rape of young virgin girls before execution, forced marriages and other forms of sexual violence, some of which continues today. In July 2011, a female prisoner committed suicide after violent beatings, including with electronic batons. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran states that a prisoner alleged that prison guards tortured her by subjecting her to sleep and toilet deprivation, keeping her in a standing position for hours, burning her with cigarettes, exposing her to extreme temperatures for extended periods of time and punching, kicking and striking her with batons (A/67/369, para. 27).
Why not cite the UN report then, no one ca argue with that.
Slatersteven (
talk) 11:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit : Also I must remind that Shadi Sadr source was talking exactly about Sharia' and religious Fatwas -- IranianNationalist ( talk) 14:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Also can users tone down their language, It is confrontational and abusive. if you thin editors are not playing fair do not shout a them report them. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed this edit by @ Robynthehode: and since I'm a bit rusty on current V policy I wanted to ask for a second opinion here. WP:TWITTER allows tweets by a subject about themselves as primary sources. But what if the Twitter user is not talking about themselves but a subject they work on? Here it's Pablo Hidalgo (who really should have an article) talking about Star Wars, something he didn't create but certainly knows a looooot about as a member of the Lucasfilm Story Group. Does his work suffice to make the tweet a reliable source per WP:TWITTER? Also, complicating the matter further, if it does, how about the fact that the account is not verified by Twitter? Regards So Why 17:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
To my mind your answer is in your last part of your question. As this is not a verified account we cannot be sure it is him expressing his opinions. His tweets (assuming they are his) can be used for what he is working on, but not for what a company he is working for may be doing unrelated to his direct role. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Pablo Hidalgo posted on Twitter that...). However, the main problem with how it was used here is that the article attributes the content to a Little White Lies interview with Gareth Edwards, so amending that with material gleaned from a separate source, which mentions neither Edwards nor the interview, and which doesn't even explicitly state "2012", is inherently problematic. So in this case it was used inappropriately, and if it is not verified then it shouldn't be used at all, but
Twitter not a reliable sourceis definitely an oversimplification and has nothing to do with why the edit should have been reverted. 182.251.140.111 ( talk) 00:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to add the following to the Sanctuary city article: However, according to a report by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sanctuary cities do increase crime since individuals who are released are more likely to commit new crimes. [1]
However, another editor shot down the Washington Examiner as not a reliable source and "garbage". I know the paper leans to the right, but as far as I can tell its reliable.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 14:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Is this draft a reliable source for this section of the article? Mainly the allegations of raping prisoners. Thanks. Kazemita1 ( talk) 10:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Article:
RF resonant cavity thruster
Primary source: A
June 2016 journal article in
AIP Advances
Main secondary source: An
article in the
International Business Times UK
---
There is an ongoing dispute at RF resonant cavity thruster (EMdrive) about the IBtimes, and whether they are a reliable source. In the section we have a peer reviewed primary source, and secondary sources by the International Business Times, Sciencealert, and Next Big Future. There is also a secondary source by the Daily Mail, but I don't really think they are a RS, and not necessary anyway, as we have other, better secondary sources. This is the section in dispute:
Scientists in Finland have proposed a possible explanation of this phenomenon involving the propagation of microwave photons leaking from the closed metal cavity and thereby producing an exhaust momentum, satisfying the classical action-reaction principle. [1] This explanation relies on the wave-particle duality of electromagnetic radiation, postulating that the stochastic phases of the microwaves will (with some probability) result in destructive interference between microwaves which cancels their electromagnetic fields but allows continued propagation of the microwave photon pairs, generating net thrust consistent with the impulse-momentum theorem depending on the asymmetric shape of the cavity. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Others, particularly Rolf H Nelson, Guy and TenOfAllTrades have called the above sourcing into question, saying that we should use 'editorial judgement' with regards to removing the material as not reliable. Rolf in particular has been extremely adamant about the IBTimes not being a reliable source, going as far as to remove the material on 7 different occasions (reverted by myself and several others). This is despite the fact that it is used widely throughout the rest of the RF resonant cavity thruster article and in at least one other related example a story that the IBTimes was picked up widely and reported by others ( notably by Popular Science) who seem to regard the IBTimes as a reliable source, even with regards to the EMdrive.
As we do not seem to be getting very far in resolving the issue on the talk page, I would like some discussion here on whether the view that this material should be removed is justified. Or whether this is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Pinging involved editors not already mentioned above. Musashi miyamoto, Zedshort, mfb, Tokamac, Sparkyscience. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
FTR status-quo ante is non-inclusion; but this WP:CONSENSUS dispute will be a matter for an administrator's noticeboard, not here. Some initial discussion in [21]. IMHO we should instead discuss, here, whether the WP:WEIGHT of the text's sources merit inclusion; despite disruptive behavior by certain pro-inclusion editors, the text can nevertheless be included if the RS board agrees it merits inclusion. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
"AIP Advances is a community-based journal, with a fast production cycle. The quick publication process and open-access model allows us to quickly distribute new scientific concepts. Our Editors, assisted by peer review, determine whether a manuscript is technically correct and original. After publication, the readership evaluates whether a manuscript is timely, relevant, or significant." [23] 2015 impact factor was 1.444. The publisher is legitimate: "AIP Publishing is a wholly owned not-for-profit subsidiary of the American Institute of Physics (AIP)". Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The claims made in the paper, "On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive", is that photons can pass through arbitrary potential barriers if they are "out-of-phase" with one another, and that this provides an explanation for the emdrive. The out-of-phase argument is nonsense, but that requires some knowledge of quantum electrodynamics, or at least an understanding of how waves work, so the WP:FRINGE board might have more expertise if there's doubt about it being an "extraordinary claim". The claim has basically been ignored by the scientific community; without good WP:SECONDARY sources, it'll be hard to satisfy WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV on it even if we do include it. If there's a dispute that this is an extraordinary claim to which the "NEJM rule" should apply, then we should bring in the WP:FRINGE noticeboard, as they have more experience judging whether a claim is extraordinary. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Dubious to me; I drafted
[24] to document the judgements of RS on IBTimes; "clickbait" and "content farm" are the key words. Rather than being founded by established journalists, the paper was allegedly founded as a way to make money for an dodgy cult "enigmatic religious figure". List of awards seems
unimpressive to me.
Rolf H Nelson (
talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
All that aside, this really looks like it'd meet Wikipedia's WP:RS standard in a general sense. Its not like we're talking about some obscure blog a guy started up in his basement last year or something. We're talking about a global company that's been around for over a decade, has a corporate staff that's college educated with Masters and PhDs with experience at other big corporations, and a massively detailed ethics and editorial policy detailed. Are they an authority on high science stuff you all are arguing about? I have no idea. Maybe not. But they don't have to be. Kotaku or Entertainment Weekly probably wouldn't be good sources for hard science either, but they're still considered reliable sources in their respective fields. You guys can keep hashing it out in the sections below on that, but I strongly oppose rejecting them wholesale on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Dubious to me; for example [25] seems like clickbait: "In June, a young boy in India was snapping photos of clouds when he captured an image of what some thought may have been a flying saucer circling the skies. While some raised doubts as to whether the object was alien, others said it was definitive proof that UFOs exist, the Express reported"... "One of the more high-profile UFO sightings came after U.S. astronaut Scott Kelly tweeted a photo of the sky over India in November, showing a mysterious object in the picture’s corner. NASA didn’t offer an explanation, but at least one UFO hunter, Scott Waring, suggested that Kelly intentionally showed the UFO, trying to suggest that there may be aliens out there, the New York Post reported." Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
A look at the last five articles of the author in question, [26], gives [27] [28] [29] [30] [31], all five posted by Pandey in a seven-hour period. RS board editors can decide for themselves, but to me the article content of those five looks like a content farm based on rewriting press releases, with no effort to talk to independent scientists; thus to me the anonymous IBT employees' allegation that IBT often acts as a 'content farm' seems credible. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Extremely dubious to me. The article, [32], has a subheader "A new study proves that the EmDrive does indeed have an exhaust" (Nobel prize time, then!) and has nuggets like "since 2012 nine independent studies have been carried out by scientists from China, Germany and even Nasa to try to build and test their own versions of the EmDrive. Although the researchers are not sure why, they have all discovered signals of thrust that cannot be explained" (In truth, many results were null, most of the various study authors have acknowledged that the signals could be experimental error, and the original Chinese scientists have even retracted their findings) and "The EmDrive does work, but there's still a long way to go." This is all NEJM stuff, but none of it appears to be true, and the article doesn't quote any scientists besides the paper's lead author. IMHO an WP:RS would have spoken with an independent physicist; again, even if we included the text, inclusion would create WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV problems. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd support including the above section, as written, because we are not endorsing the conclusions of the Finnish paper, we are merely saying that it exists, and has drawn popular notice; which it has. Yes, the IBTimes is not a great source for science. However, I would argue that the RF resonant cavity thruster isn't really presenting the thing as science, but as pseudoscience, which it is clearly categorized as ( Category:Pseudophysics is part of Category:Pseudoscience). If we could only include scientific papers as sources for pseudoscience articles, we'd need to delete most of our sections on Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Piltdown Man, the Flat Earth theory, etc. So not very scientific but popular sources should be par for the course. We just need to keep it objective, and short (since it hasn't drawn that much notice), both of which I think the proposed section does. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We've had a lot of comment on the reliability of IBTimes for the above section, and still need more to decide consensus I think, as there seem to be two clear camps, but there has been little comment on ScienceAlert, which is a second source for the above section that also seems to be a reliable source strong enough to hang the section on. Put another way, even if we decided not to accept IBTtimes (which I don't agree with), we should also discuss this other source as it would also need to be discounted. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
On December 20th, @ Knowledgebattle: went through approximately 50 pages, deleting all sources from websites owned by ECT News Network, primarily LinuxInsider, leaving edit summaries saying "ECT News (and it's extra platforms) is a scam site. Shouldn't be referenced." In subsequent discussion on his talk page, he expressed a willingness to discuss it here, but then did not follow through and two weeks later said "I forgot to care about this. I dunno, do whatever you want." What I want to do is get this sorted out. Can these sources be cited or not?
What makes this particularly egregious is that Knowledgebattle removed the citations carelessly, leaving many orphaned refs—and then when AnomieBot rescued them, he reverted AnomieBot's edits (see this edit to Wikipedia as an example). So several pages have had orphaned refs in them for two weeks now as a result, and whichever way this is decided these need to be fixed.
(@ David Gerard: @ Guy Macon: @ Icebob99: @ Shenme:)
ZackTheCardshark ( talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I am going to attempt to provide an overview of this issue.
There are four places where this is discussed. Might I propose that all future discussion be referred here so that we have one discussion in one place?
The four places are: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to LinuxInsider and ECT network websites removed by KnowledgeBattle User:Knowledgebattle/interesting User talk:Knowledgebattle#LinuxInsider Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 20#LinuxInsider
First, let us have no more talk about sanctions, blocks, topic bans, etc. This is RSN, not ANI, and thus such discussion are inappropriate here.
OK, on to the main question. Knowledgebattle has presented evidence for CIO Today, CRM Daily, CRM Buyer, E-commerce Times, ECT News Network, Enterprise Security Today, LinuxInsider, NewsFactor, Sci-Tech Today, and TechNewsWorld having a common owner. (He got it wrong concerning FreeNewsFeed. That's a service offered by NewsFactor, not a site like the others)
However, as ZackTheCardshark asks, [34] "Is this particularly different from the way MacWorld, PCWorld, and TechHive are all part of the IDG network? Is that similarly problematic?"
So, on what basis does Knowledgebattle conclude that "having the same owner" equals "unreliable source"? Disney owns ABC, ESPN, A+E, Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios. Does that make those sources unreliable? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
So since no one else has any objections, and user:Aspro makes a strong case, can we consider the source legitimate? If so, then I assume there are some tools available that can aid in restoring the references. Is there anyone who can do that? Or should this be requested on another noticeboard? ZackTheCardshark ( talk) 00:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Knowledgebattle just silently deleted his "for all those wondering about why LinuxInsider was removed, I show the reason here" talk page entry, [35] all with zero effort to clean up the mess he made or have a substantive conversation about why so many people are pissed off at him. If he repeats the behavior, take him straight to WP:ANI. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be useful if we could find a place to notate to users to not use Google's amp service as a reliable source and to instead use the actual originating source. Google's /amp/
service was blacklisted by request as it has been a means to get around blacklists, and that it was believed that we should not be using pseudo-source. I am currently seeing regular edit blocks on the urls for the amp service. I have amended the blacklist edit-blocking note to give a little more guidance, however telling users in a block message is too late, and we need to put something more overt and helpful to users. Thanks if someone can think of the best spot to add such a note. —
billinghurst
sDrewth 04:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
/amp/
so "www.google.com.br/amp/www.ibtimes.com/nikki-mudarris-love-triangle-blows-her-face-love-hip-hop-hollywood-season-3-episode-5-2418724" becomes "www.ibtimes.com/nikki-mudarris-love-triangle-blows-her-face-love-hip-hop-hollywood-season-3-episode-5-2418724" —
billinghurst
sDrewth 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/%3Fsource%3Ddam?client=safari
. Removing google.com/amp/
results in a amp.timeinc.net
URL, generating a 404 error
[36]. I see no reliable and repeatable way to derive the original URL from the AMP URL other than loading the latter on a desktop device, where it redirects to the former. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If AMP is blocked for potentially circumventing the blacklist, and AMP URLs usually contain the original URL as a substring, couldn’t we work around that by blocking the domain names as substrings? Or we could remove blacklisted AMPed links at the time of de-AMPing them, which would obviously be more of a delayed process than blacklisting. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 05:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
#t=1m23s
. And I disagree. You should include timecodes for the same reason you should include page numbers. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 00:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)/
. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 00:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)I have a question about a source at Jacob Barnett.
The relevant passage is this:
In 2011, following a series of (no longer available [1] [2] [3]) YouTube videos published by Barnett's mother, several articles appeared in the mainstream media...
This video does not exist.
The source I'd like to discuss is:
The apparent reason that this dead URL is being included is because, if you wanted to verify that this URL originally contained the now-unavailable (at that URL) video, then you could go to various Wikipedia talk page archives, and determine that some Wikipedia editors had viewed the video years ago and said that it contained the now-unavailable video.
I believe that this is insufficient to meet WP:V. First, it assumes that Wikipedia's past discussions are reliable sources for a BLP, even though WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second, the policy is that some people "can" verify whether or not this cited source contains the alleged information, not that "they could have checked this source, if they'd happened to have been around four years ago".
What do you think? Is this dead URL reliable for a claim in a BLP article that a particular video is "no longer available"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Time ref fixed by 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 04:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
-- Auric talk 01:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
NOTE: if you change some of the digits randomly in the above URL, (basically creating a random youtube designation) you will get the same result (providing you dont get the astronomically bad luck of getting a designation that has been issued to a video). In other words, the page displayed is the same for youtube designations that have been deleted, as for youtube designations that have not been issued to a video yet. Therefore I don't see the link adding much of anything, unless another source specified an exact youtube designation. this page that is returned is simply youtubes version of a 404 page. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Whether we’re citing the video’s current state to an error message or we’re citing the video’s title to an archive page, we still have the reader investigating two separate links and visually comparing two URLs to verify the single claim that this was that video. Can anyone offer rationale for how this is not synthesis? Because it really looks like it to me. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
My question is specifically about whether it's possible for current and future readers to verify material using this YouTube URL. It appears from the above that even the proponents of including it agree that it is not. I hope that they will now explain which guideline says that Wikipedia articles must cite original sources for scientific ideas, and how a YouTube video by a 12 year old falls under that standard. (I have my doubts about both of those points, but perhaps Wikipedia has a guideline for astrophysics, and perhaps it is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's well-known guideline for biomedical sciences.)
On the other sources, I consider this a bit of a tangent from my original question, but we've already gone three rounds on the question of other reliable sources that say the video isn't available, so let me give the RSN folks a short summary.
The proponents of including this statement have produced two news stories from a few years ago that they say "verifies" the non-availability of the video because those stories (a) linked to the original YouTube URL and (b) now those YouTube URLs don't work. These sources are included at the top of the section. They are:
What the other editors have asked for is:
That kind of source would let us know that:
So far, nobody seems to have found any human-written reliable sources talking about the broken URL. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
this kid is basically a victim of a book tour—That’s actually a good idea. But we need more sources about the aftermath, even if we don’t go that route; I think we only have two. But that’s a discussion more for the article than RSN. Same goes for everything in these replies, actually; none of it seems relevant to the question posed. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I intended to use the source “Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age” to expand our article on the SCP Foundation. The source in question provides a lot of useful information on the SCP Foundation website that is not available in any other reliable source. For example, the source describes the website’s forums, deletion policy, application policy, and also gives an overview of the general structure of SCP articles that is much more through than the overview given by other sources. My problem with the source is that it is a doctoral thesis, rather than a traditionally published journal article. I have zero experience with this type of source, and our policy on reliable sources seemed kind of iffy on whether they were acceptable or not. I’d appreciate it if anyone more familiar with this type of source could provide some feedback on whether or not this is a useable source. The full citation is: Newsom, E. T. (2013). Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age (Order No. 3601025). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1466302542). url= http://search.proquest.com/docview/1466302542?accountid=11091 . Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 07:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this website) a reliable source? It seems to be different from this site. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The source is an article from Ray al-Youm here. It's being used to support these statements in 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping:
According to the Rai al-Youm on-line newspaper, 'Abdeh Raji', known as 'Captain', and 'Biar Rizq', known as 'Akram', were involved in the abduction.
The abducted individuals were reportedly poisoned under the supervision of Elie Hobeika, a then Phalangist, in Karantina for 20 days and were moved to the prison of Adonis.
Later in 2016, according to what the London-based Rai al-Youm referred to as an accurate intelligence report, a recently released Greek prisoner from Israeli jails informed the Iranian embassy in Athens that he had seen the four abducted individuals alive in Israeli jails. Ahmad Habibollah Abu Hesham, known as a "spiritual father" of prisoners of Israeli jails, had made a similar comment that Motavesellian and the others were alive in Atlit detainee camp after visiting and inspecting prisoners in Israeli jails. He died in what Rai al-Youm claimed was a "made up accident by Israel."
Elie Hobeika verified the abduction of the diplomats and their handing over to Israel by Geagea's group
What our Wikipedia article refers to as a London-based online newspaper looks to me like a propaganda website run by an expat. I don't speak Arabic but I don't get the impression there's any real fact checking or editorial oversight involved. The Wikipedia article already suffers from a pro-Iranian bias due to the fact the there's not much interest in the subject from outlets outside the region. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."-- Mhhossein talk 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Are [42] and [43] reliable sources for the film budget and box office information in Ami Shudhu Cheyechi Tomay (4 citations)?
The website's home page shows "blog stats" and advertises "Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com." There is no "about us" or "contact us". The author of all content is identified only by the handle dhallywoodworld. There is no evidence of editorial review. I see no reputation for fact checking or accuracy. I haven't found any reliable sources that cite Box Office Bangladesh.
So my evaluation is that it is not a reliable source. It is cited in 17 Wikipedia articles, mostly by IPs (7 articles) and sockpuppets (6 articles), who may not know or care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also by editors in good standing (4 articles). The author of List of highest grossing Bangladeshi films cited it, but included the disclaimer "There is no official tracking of figures, and sites publishing data are frequently pressured to increase their estimates", a caveat that was later removed by a sockpuppet. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 02:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just trying to use The Intercept as a source. The Intercept journalist cites multiple military and intelligence sources stating that a subject of a Wikipedia article, Linda Norgrove, worked for British Intelligence. I'd like to make a brief note of this in her bio. Another editor undid my edit, said the source was not reliable (among other things).
Fx6893 ( talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am looking at a source for record chart data originally published by Radio & Records magazine. The source, http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/gghunt/charts/chart.html, while not the most sophisticated web design, appears to be the product of academic research by a Graham Hunt, Ph.D., Professor of Musicology and Music Theory at the University of Texas at Arlington. This research could possibly just be a hobby, although the site says Radio & Records granted permission to use the data which suggests an academic pursuit. Opinions and guidance would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki ( talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
We can safely ignore Hunt himself and his lack of credentials, as he works with published data from the magazine. The question is if the magazine is reliable and whether we can quote their data. Dimadick ( talk) 08:19, 17 January 2017 (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 215 | Archive 216 | Archive 217 | Archive 218 | Archive 219 | Archive 220 | → | Archive 225 |
The article Central Park jogger case has a series of "facts" in the "Arrests, interrogations, and confessions" section that are reported in our voice that are taken from a The Daily Beast source authored by Edward Conlon. This article must be free of bias, I'm sure all would agree. The lives of five boys/men were severely affected by this incident and we need to be very careful not to add to that. I looked up "The Daily Beast" here and did not come up with anything for certain. The news article seems to be an opinion piece...? I would greatly appreciate input. Thanks. Gandydancer ( talk) 18:41, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
This is about [2]. I consider the main source unreliable. The Brill source is a red herring, since it is employed for a very bland claim, it does not verify most of the claims made. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 13:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hutchison's books are either WP:SPS or published by a very marginal publishing house (vanity press or fringe publisher). Tgeorgescu ( talk) 20:00, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
A discussion concerning the use of GQ as a source for Generation Snowflake is taking place at Talk:Generation Snowflake#RFC - Source #1: GQ Magazine. Input from contributors with expertise about sourcing is welcome. Thank you, — Godsy ( TALK CONT) 07:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello,
I am considering using the following article to add information on the subject of Wahhabism and wanted to know if it is considered a reliable source:
The article is written by Professor Michael Sells of the University of Chicago so I have no doubt about the authors credentials, however the article in question is published by the Huffington Post and as far as I am aware this falls short for being an RS. Can somebody clarify? Thanks MontyKind ( talk) 08:37, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
Thank you. Based on the above I will use this article as a source. MontyKind ( talk) 08:11, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
I apologize in advance if this type of question has already been brought up either on this noticeboard or some other aspect/essay on Wikipedia. I have done a lot of work on the article Kyra, which is about a fictional character from the television show Charmed. It passed a GA review back in June, and I was thinking about bringing it to FAC sometime in the future (most likely the somewhat distant future as I have a rather long list of articles I would like to bring to FAC). My question about the reliable sources concerns the following two sources: 1) https://charmedcomicfan10.jimdo.com and 2) Tumblr.
I cited these two sources specifically in the context of interviews with the creators of the Charmed comic books as they discuss the development and appearances of the character. I believe that they are reliable in this context (I know it is dubious to use information from a fan website and/or social media, but I would think it would be permissible in the context of interviews). For a point of reference, here is a link to one of the interviews that I cited in the article: 1.
I was wondering if these two sources are appropriate for use on here and if the sources would be deemed okay if brought up in an FAC? Thank you in advance. Aoba47 ( talk) 01:59, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
As I asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Brazil#Reliable source.3F, is this a reliable source please? I'm trying to expand Castro Barbosa. Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 23:19, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
We have often used reliable sources by certain authors, which have reviews that attest to their merit. But some editors have suggested that an author's works are now unreliable, because of their subsequent non-conventional "beliefs", eg:
Do we (a) require sources that confirm that the original works are now unreliable, or (b) is this just the personal opinion of editors based on an Association fallacy? In other words, can editors over-ride existing reliable sources without requiring sources, despite WP:TALK#FACTS? -- Iantresman ( talk) 12:48, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
To expand a bit on this, there are questions as they relate to WP:FRIND as to what constitutes a truly "independent" source. This is also seen in WP:Independent sources, for example. To determine notability, it is worthwhile to look for independent sources which attest to the importance of a particular subject. That is the sense in which Bauer's book on Velikovsky is being promoted (as a notability test, not a reliability test).
To be clear, I, the AfD nominator for the journals that are being obliquely referred to here, have no objection whatsoever about using Bauer's book as a reliable source in the appropriate context anywhere in Wikipedia. But I strongly object to the use of his book as an indicator of independent notability for a fringe journal. This is due to Bauer's advocacy of fringe journals and pseudoscience. He is attracted to these subjects as a matter of POV against the mainstream scientific community. This is a perfectly fine perspective to take and it is somewhat prominently described in his Wikipedia biography, for example, but Wikipedia needs to make decisions about notability of articles that are not tied to fringe perspectives because to do otherwise would cause us to be unable to adhere to WP:NPOV. jps ( talk) 19:08, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Swedish expo.se for reliably and neutrally determining the exact ideology of the nationalist Party of the Danes as being Nazism (which is a disputed matter)?
There are several issues to consider. Expo.se is pretending to be a neutral research organization. Expo Foundation was established by the far-leftist author Stieg Larsson. He was the Expo magazine's co-founder and editor-in-chief until his death. Former "chief-of-research" Tobias Hübinette was an AFA member, anarcho-syndicalist and convicted criminal. One member of this Expo organization stated that "Marxism is science and a doctrine of ideas." Expo's stated goals are to research intolerance, racism and right-wing extremism. Expo is created and managed by known far left figures and solely critizing certain right wing elements.
Does that qualify as a reliable source for ensuring an NPOV documentation of the Party of the Danes being a Nazi party? -- ContraVentum ( talk) 15:29, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Please let others write. It is as usual not "the more uou write the more right you are", but sources that counts. Adville ( talk) 10:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
AWDnews is in the headlines for running a fake news story which nearly started a nuclear war between pakistan and israel. I think that may disqualify them as a reliable source. i found 3 usages of them on WP ( [4], [5], [6]), and i removed them as they were NOT critical, but i would love to see them blacklisted. this site says they are unreliable. Mercurywoodrose ( talk) 07:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The Shinola shoe polish brand is connected in the USA with a saying, "You don't know shit from Shinola." Like any popular saying, this one has appeared in a variety of media. At Shinola (shoe polish) there is an "in popular culture" consisting mostly, but not entirely, of such examples.
The standards for sourcing popular culture examples have been discussed in an RfC. That RfC determined that both accuracy and cultural significance are relevant when sourcing IPC examples, and secondary sources are preferred to establish the latter. These conclusions were incorporated into the Wikipedia:"In popular culture" content essay. I have attempted to remove examples from the Shinola article in accordance with the sourcing standards established in those documents. 7&6=thirteen ( talk · contribs) has indiscriminately reverted my changes, accused me of edit warring, and insisted on de novo discussion of the same question that was discussed in the RfC. This user has also added more examples cited only to primary sources or sources of questionable reliability, such as this YouTube channel that has no particular editorial transparency.
I request opinions at the article talk page on the appropriateness of my edits and 7&6=thirteen's edits with respect to the RfC, as well as general Wikipedia norms on reliable sourcing and the removal/preservation of non-biographical material that has questionable sourcing. 24.7.14.87 ( talk) 21:24, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
Is medicaldaily.com a reliable source?
Benjamin ( talk) 07:23, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated in the talk page of the Sati article. The sources being used for some of the disputed material form an important component of the dispute. Please comment on the article talk page if this topic interests you. Soham321 ( talk) 05:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm currently in the midst of a discussion on Talk:Tel Dan Stele (extending to other related articles, ie Merneptah Stele) involving sources. I attempted to add a source for the phrase "The Tel Dan stele is one of four known contemporary inscriptions containing the name of Israel, the others being the Merneptah Stele, the Mesha Stele, and the Kurkh Monolith." The source was as follows: [1] At first, another editor on the page said the source contradicted the existing source. When it was pointed out that it doesn't, the editor then cursed me out and said the source was "irrelevant". The editor's objections are puzzling to me, claiming that "The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël" is "irrelevant" because "the only reference to the name Israel is referring to a combination of three sources at the same time", which even as a semantic argument seems to not make sense. We already know for a fact that the first three documents listed (along with the fourth) all independently mention Israel, and the other editor knows that as well, so it's unclear why that argument is being made. To me, these are clearly reliable sources that support the text, but I'm hoping to get a third opinion. (Please note that "Shalmaneser III of Assyria"/"Assyrian royal annals" = Kurkh Monoliths) Drsmoo ( talk) 04:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
References
The Assyrian royal annals, along with the Mesha and Dan inscriptions, show a thriving northern state called Israël in the mid—9th century, and the continuity of settlement back to the early Iron Age suggests that the establishment of a sedentary identity should be associated with this population, whatever their origin. In the mid—14th century, the Amarna letters mention no Israël, nor any of the biblical tribes, while the Merneptah stele places someone called Israël in hill-country Palestine toward the end of the Late Bronze Age. The language and material culture of emergent Israël show strong local continuity, in contrast to the distinctly foreign character of early Philistine material culture.
I keep finding Crunchbase used as a ref in articles, especially about young companies, to source information about funding the company has raised. (Like, "In 2009 StartupZ raised $10M from MoneyBags Ventures") I checked the RSN archives and do not see that Crunchbase has been questioned before.
A wikilink to the description of Crunchbase in Wikipedia is above, and here is the site itself. (and here fwiw, is a quora question about it.)
As you can see at the site, anybody can register an account, and add or change data. At its about page, you can see that Crunchbase says that (as of the time I am looking at it) it has 299,000 contributors who have made 5.4 million edits. They also have 2,900 "Venture partners" who apparently are funders who add content about funding they do.
Crunchbase says they have paid staff that reviews everything. (See here).
However there appears to be an issue with regard to WP:USERGENERATED and it seems to me that we should not consider Crunchbase reliable.
Separately, even if the community says it is reliable to source content about funds raised, it seems to me Crunchbase should never be used in a Notability discussion, because a company can add its own information there and create the reference.
Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 04:25, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
An RfC has been initiated on the talk page of Jawaharlal Nehru. Please vote on it if the topic is of interest to you. Soham321 ( talk) 04:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I invite anyone to participate in this RfC regarding the Airlines and destinations tables in airport articles. These tables show which airlines fly to an airport, as well as the cities they fly to from the airport. They exist on the perhaps hundreds of airport articles on Wikipedia, so I would like to establish proper consensus on this issue. One possible issue with these tables has to do with how they are referenced. Regards. — Sunnya343✈ ( háblame • my work) 21:07, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
An IP editor is adding content to this article citing the source "FoxFlash publicity" ( this is the website), but the content can only be verified by logging into the website and only if you have press credentials (if you work in the film/TV industry). I'm wondering if this is acceptable as a source? Thank you. Drovethrughosts ( talk) 14:36, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
Is [10] a reliable source for the following paragraph from Syed Shahid (singer)?
Syed Shaidul Islam ( Bengali: সৈয়দ শহীদুল ইসলাম) was born in Chittagong. He was raised in the port city of Chittagong where he learned lesson of music and playing harmonium from Soumyo Didi. But none of his family members liked music so he practiced to sing secretly. Shahid got his first recognition in singing when he was a student of Al Khan High School. At that time he won the first prize in inter district 'Nazrul' song competition. Afterwords he learned music from 'Shilpokola Academy' when he was a student of Chittagong City College. Singer Syed Shahid formed a music band named 'Lohitto' when he was a graduate student in the department of Economics of Chittagong University. Therefore he came in Dhaka. In 2004 he formed the band Doorbin with Sabbir and Noyon.
The affirmative view is held by Nayeem Hossain, the editor using this as a source and as evidence of notability. On their talk page they give the trenchant, policy-based, explanation of their reasoning: "Yes. www.bdalltime.com is a reliable source."
My own evaluation is that the website (also styled as Bangladeshi Entertainment) has none of the characteristics of a reliable source. It has no reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, is not commonly quoted by reliable sources, and tends heavily toward promotional opinion and rumor. The site's About Us starts with "Hi readers & visitors! I am Dhorbin Islam the founder, CEO & author of Bangladeshi Entertainment blog." -- Worldbruce ( talk) 00:56, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Can someone who speaks Spanish please check out poderopedia and let me know if it is a reliable source? I would err on the side of 'no', but just want to double-check. I'd like to translate this and they seem to have his bio, but I may not be able to cite it. Otherwise we may need to find obituaries from 1991, but in Spanish, in published in the Chilean press (not easy to find!). Thank you. Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:03, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
According to the Wikipedia, tweets are most of the time not reliable unless WP:TWITTER or WP:SPS. However, there is a discussion going on the Street Fighter V talk page. It's about an organization called "Evo". One of the co-founder tweets about the number of registrants on his own tournament on his own Twitter account. I'm pretty sure that this is not reliable because nobody can actually verify whether this is true nor is the tweet an official statement from the organization "Evo" itself. But a game magazine called "Polygon" which is usually reliable (but certainly not always) wrote a small article about this using the tweet as a source. Now, even though they have editorial staff, I'm pretty sure that they haven't verified the statement themselves nor did they wrote anything about verifying it in the article itself. Polygon assumes that the tweet is true, which is already something that is not accepted by the rules that Wikipedia has. Note: At the bottom of the article, Polygon literally states: "SOURCE: Joey Cuellar on Twitter". So my question: Isn't it obvious that any article that solely uses a tweet (without verification) as a source can be considered unreliable?
Link of Polygon article: http://www.polygon.com/2016/7/1/12080396/evo-2016-breaks-records-total-number-players Link of Tweet: https://twitter.com/MrWiz/status/748775258828578817 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 20:55, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be quoted instead of stating it as a fact? The tweet is talking about the organization "Evo". If Wikipedia takes every tweet of every employer of a company as a fact, then it's impossible to form an accurate factual article. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 22:39, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Look, nobody knows if that's the real amount of registrants. A co-founder can write whatever he wants about his company as long as it's positive for the company itself. Yes, it's covered by Polygon, but they don't have the verification that Wikipedia needs. Polygon simply reasoned like this: "The tweet is from a co-founder of Evo. So it's probably true.". That's the only verification it did. The author did not said anything about other verifications. But that verification is not valid by Wikipedia.
So if a reliable source writes an article based on a tweet of an employer of company X. Then we can just put that on Wikipedia (as a fact) without additional verification. Did I get that right? 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 23:23, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
So yes, like I said. Anything that a reliable source (like Polygon) says or writes about can be considered a fact on Wikipedia ? Also, you said that the *only* people that would know how many people registered for SFV would be EVO themselves. Then, how can Polygon fact-check that statement of the co-founder? I'm really not trying to be nitpicky, really. It's just a bit confusing. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 23:43, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
Wow, you are not very friendly for newcomers, huh. The argument is that the co-founder can say whatever he wants. But fine, I agree to disagree since I don't want to waste my time with someone who is not willing to explain why my argument is not valid. No wonder Wikipedia has a shortage of editors. 2A02:A03F:2C36:2A00:98BD:A5BF:A747:2881 ( talk) 00:54, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
Hello, I am currently dealing with an article I wrote and it was AfD I think too soon. Since then, I tried to do what the nominator asked me to do in order to improve the article and avoid to delete it. I provided new reliable references because this was the matter for the deletion and I found them via FACTIVA DOW JONES. Most of the references provided from newspaper such New York Times, La Vanguardia, Agencia EFE, St. Petersburg Time, and so, but when I resubmitted the draft I got a message from the user who declined the draft first telling that the sources are not good enough for "our"policies. Here you can find some of the sources because I totally disagree with this argument with Draft:Ramzi_Maqdisi.
Ramzi Maqdisi (Arabic: رمزي مقدسي; born 1980; Jerusalem) is a Palestinian filmmaker and film and theater actor known for Solomon's Stone,[1] Omar,[2] [3]The Attack[4][5][6][7][8] and Love, Theft and Other Entanglements.[9][10]
[1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10]
References
Full of teasing allusions to his past and boasting a striking performance by his wife of 25 years, Venus in Fur may not be Polanski's most cinematically audacious work. But it has a deceptive complexity and teasing sophistication that make its shifting power games all the more compelling and provocative. ... Two years later, senior Palestinian leader Ramzi Maqdisi tracks Bakri down and asks what he remembers about Hoorani's death. Bakri feigns ignorance when he asks where Bisharat got the money to marry Lubany and shows no...
The movie, written by Mr. Doueiri and his wife, Joëlle Touma, retains much of what's good in the book, including Amin's forced confrontation with the past, which begins the night he's called back to the hospital where he works. Minutes later, he is standing in a morgue and pulling a sheet off the mangled corpse of his wife, Siham (Reymonde Amsellem)... WITH: Ali Suliman (Amin), Reymonde Amsellem (Siham), Evgenia Dodina (Kim), Uri Gavriel (Captain Moshe), Karim Saleh (Adel), Dvir Benedek (Raveed), Ruba Salameh (Faten) and Ramzi Maqdisi (the Priest).
Director Ziad Doueiri (C) and actors Ramzi Maqdisi (L), Ali Suliman (2nd R) and Karim Saleh pose during a photocall following the screening of "The Attack" on the fifth day of the San Sebastian Film Festival September 25, 2012. The film is part of the festival's Official Section.
El director de origen libanés, Ziad Doueiri, presentó hoy en la 60 edición del Festival Internacional de Cine de San Sebastián, "The Attack", película que trata sobre el peligro de un ciudadano palestino de vivir en la ciudad israelí de Tel Aviv. ...Otro de los intérpretes del filme, Ramzi Maqdisi, expresó que "no buscamos cambiar el mundo con estas películas, pero queremos expresar lo que siente un ser humano allí".
The film, which won top prize at the Rio de Janeiro Film Festival, is the story of a circus performer's attempted reconciliation with his family's past ...Al-Hob wa Al-Sariqa wa Mashakel Ukhra (Love, Theft and Other Entanglements) – Palestinian Territories By Muayad Alayan With Sami Metwasi, Maya Abu Alhayyat, Riyad Sliman, Ramzi Maqdisi, Kamel Elbasha World premiere
Please, I need to know if the new references provided are reliable, and if they don't, please tell what kind of sources are really good enough. I'm asking for help to improve the draft through the sources. Thank you very much in advance for assisting me. Parauleira ( talk) 09:46, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I recently came across this website, and while looking it up here to check for information about it, I found it used as a source on several pages, like Scarlett Montanaro and Dave Rosin. Allowing this as a source doesn't seem like a good idea. The bios seem to be taken from old versions of Wikipedia articles and other sites, including other wikis, and it has a lot of weird stuff, like letting users vote on what they think a celebrity's sexuality is and allowing users to set their net worth. SonOfPlisskin ( talk) 23:49, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
At the Geraldine Ferraro article there is currently a dispute about whether this piece by Murray Rothbard and published by LewRockwell.com can be considered a reliable source for characterizations of Ferraro and Elizabeth Holtzman, two New York politicians who got into a bitter Democratic Party primary battle in 1992. I say no, while the other editor, @ JoshDonaldson20:, implicitly says yes by adding this material three times into the article (in the most recent case, leaving out one use of the Rothbard piece but still reinserting the other).
My case for "no" is that Rothbard is a highly opinionated writer, LewRockwell.com is a highly opinionated political site that often verges into conspiracy theories, and the article in question is obviously highly non-neutral, as can be seen from its opening: "Joy oh joy! Hosanna! It would be difficult to pick, out of an all-too-jammed field, the most repellent politician in American life, but surely Elizabeth Holtzman would run anyone a very close race for that honor. Tough, dour, butch, pencil-thin, and ultra-left, Liz Holtzman has been plaguing New Yorkers, and Americans in general, for many years." And it goes on from there. To me this isn't even close to being an RS, but I seem to be unable to convince the other editor of this, whom I have pinged in this post.
What say the folks here? Wasted Time R ( talk) 18:14, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
I've found the article List of United States cities by percentage of white population which draws on IndexMundi as its only source at present; the sited page is http://www.indexmundi.com/facts/united-states/quick-facts/cities/rank/white-population-percentage. I'm not concerned here with that article so much as what I found while looking at IndexMundi. The about page states "IndexMundi is a data portal that gathers facts and statistics from multiple sources and turns them into easy to use visuals." However, I've been unable to find a systematic set of information on where the data for any particular visualization comes from. Now, I could infer that the information cited for the noted article here comes from the 2010 US general census, but inferring that and seeing a clear specification of how the data visualization was arrived at are two very different things. What do you think? --User:Ceyockey ( talk to me) 03:11, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
(Please note: readers will need to google the article in question. The Daily News blocks linkage to its articles, and I don't know how to circumvent it) It's been alleged that the New York Daily News is not a reliable source, because it is a tabloid—specifically that "Soccer Rat! The inside story of how Chuck Blazer, ex-U.S. soccer executive and FIFA bigwig, became a confidential informant for the FBI," from 1 November 2014 can't be used as a source for Chuck Blazer. The specific fact in question is how Blazer 'flipped.' I contend that the News's reporting is reliable, despite its over the top style. There's strong documentation, including official documents. The NYTimes saw fit to quote the Daily News account of the encounter verbatim. Comments please. Tapered ( talk) 22:44, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
Is the King Faisal International Prize website ( http://kfip.org/en) reliable for biographical information? I am dubious as the organisation has commended people such as the Holocaust denier Roger Garaudy and the Islamist Syed Abul Ala Maudidi.
I was wondering - can SFF Audio be seen as a reliable source here on Wikipedia? I've seen them around quite a bit and I do see where they get name dropped every now and again. They're mentioned in this Dummies book and their reviews do get put in book praise sections like this one by Galaxy Press. There's also some mention here, on the website for LibriVox. This mention from SF Signal bodes well for the site too, since the founder of SF Signal, John DeNardo, mentions that he regularly takes news and other tidbits from there - and the SF Signal is definitely seen as a RS for reviews and news. (Despite it being now closed, its stuff is still up on the Internet at this point in time.)
Do you guys think that SFF Audio could be seen as a RS on here? It's not a fly by night, they have a set staff, and they aren't a marketing outfit, meaning that they like to promote stuff that interests them but they aren't selling their services or out to promote everyone that sends them an inquiry. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:24, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
The bulk of the content on Islamic Human Rights Commission seems to have the organization's own website as its source. I have deleted some of the examples and tagged some of the content - but I am unsure as to how far to go with this. FOr example, if some of the organization's activities are entirely unreported except through the organization's own website, is its website a valid source to use, and if not, meaning the material will be unsourced, are such activities notable enough for inclusion in an article? And are quotes from press releases or response statements issued by the organization valid material for article inclusion if they remain unreported by any RS media outlet? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 22:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
This is a very web 1.0 site with a good deal of what looks like opinion. Is it a reliable source? There are an enormous number of links on Wikipedia. Guy ( Help!) 17:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
From the above, we have:
That suggests ot me that whatever editorial oversight they have, is fundamentally broken, and thus the site is not a WP:RS. Guy ( Help!) 10:12, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Here is a link to an RfC that relates to reliable sources: Talk:Banjica concentration camp#RfC about the use of Cohen's Serbia's Secret War Your input would be appreciated. Thanks, Peacemaker67 ( click to talk to me) 23:33, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm currently working on improving the " Gliese 581 g" article, and I used the following source in the article's infobox: [18]. This is the diff: [19]. At first, I thought it was perfectly fine to use the Daily Mail as a source since it is the second largest daily newspaper in the United Kingdom, but after doing some further research about it, it turns out that the Daily Mail has been criticized for racism, homophobia, and printing false stories. Therefore, I would like to know what the community thinks about the reliability of this source. — MartinZ02 ( talk) 23:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
It's really really really bad" He doesn't seem to like them, no. I'm sure it's nothing personal -- Hillbillyholiday talk 01:05, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
I am not aware of what "racist" or "homophobic" implications could arise from the discovery of a planet 20 light years away - is there a disturbing rampant pink hue to it perhaps (or, worse still, a rainbow colored one), or have the astronomers detected it is full of bearded fanatics just waiting to make the long interstellar journey to Europe? Unless the Daily Mail has a hidden part ownership of the W. M. Keck Observatory in Hawaii, this newspaper is not the source of the story (and the article actually cites something called "Discovery News" as its source). Stop using this noticeboard as an excuse to make stupid and juvenile off-topic attacks on the Daily Mail (or to indulge in deceptive wikilinking using piping - should Hillbillyholiday editing be checked for similar violations in article content?). The Daily Mail is obviously not a suitable source for facts in contentious science-related subjects, but the OP has not asked that - in fact, they seem to be asking spurious questions for dubious motives. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 12:31, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Is this draft a reliable source for this section of the article? Mainly the allegations of raping prisoners. Thanks.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 16:40, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
28. In many countries, women’s political activism has given rise to arrests and detentions. A recent report on the Islamic Republic of Iran refers to interviews with former women prisoners of conscience who were arrested for a number of reasons, including political affiliation, which can include affiliation with political opposition, women’s rights activists, student bodies, NGOs, members or defenders of the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender community or defenders of the rights of religious minorities; individual activities related to journalism, the media, blogging and human rights advocacy; participation in demonstrations or other forms of activism; religious crimes, including affiliation with unrecognized minorities; and violations pertaining to laws linked to dress codes (hijab).48
Kazemita1 ( talk) 12:46, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
38. A recent study uncovered cases of rape of female political prisoners in the Islamic Republic of Iran throughout the 1980s, including the rape of young virgin girls before execution, forced marriages and other forms of sexual violence, some of which continues today. In July 2011, a female prisoner committed suicide after violent beatings, including with electronic batons. The Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran states that a prisoner alleged that prison guards tortured her by subjecting her to sleep and toilet deprivation, keeping her in a standing position for hours, burning her with cigarettes, exposing her to extreme temperatures for extended periods of time and punching, kicking and striking her with batons (A/67/369, para. 27).
Why not cite the UN report then, no one ca argue with that.
Slatersteven (
talk) 11:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Edit : Also I must remind that Shadi Sadr source was talking exactly about Sharia' and religious Fatwas -- IranianNationalist ( talk) 14:09, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Also can users tone down their language, It is confrontational and abusive. if you thin editors are not playing fair do not shout a them report them. Slatersteven ( talk) 14:28, 8 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi there. I noticed this edit by @ Robynthehode: and since I'm a bit rusty on current V policy I wanted to ask for a second opinion here. WP:TWITTER allows tweets by a subject about themselves as primary sources. But what if the Twitter user is not talking about themselves but a subject they work on? Here it's Pablo Hidalgo (who really should have an article) talking about Star Wars, something he didn't create but certainly knows a looooot about as a member of the Lucasfilm Story Group. Does his work suffice to make the tweet a reliable source per WP:TWITTER? Also, complicating the matter further, if it does, how about the fact that the account is not verified by Twitter? Regards So Why 17:36, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
To my mind your answer is in your last part of your question. As this is not a verified account we cannot be sure it is him expressing his opinions. His tweets (assuming they are his) can be used for what he is working on, but not for what a company he is working for may be doing unrelated to his direct role. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:38, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Pablo Hidalgo posted on Twitter that...). However, the main problem with how it was used here is that the article attributes the content to a Little White Lies interview with Gareth Edwards, so amending that with material gleaned from a separate source, which mentions neither Edwards nor the interview, and which doesn't even explicitly state "2012", is inherently problematic. So in this case it was used inappropriately, and if it is not verified then it shouldn't be used at all, but
Twitter not a reliable sourceis definitely an oversimplification and has nothing to do with why the edit should have been reverted. 182.251.140.111 ( talk) 00:33, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
I wanted to add the following to the Sanctuary city article: However, according to a report by Immigration and Customs Enforcement, sanctuary cities do increase crime since individuals who are released are more likely to commit new crimes. [1]
However, another editor shot down the Washington Examiner as not a reliable source and "garbage". I know the paper leans to the right, but as far as I can tell its reliable.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 14:46, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi. Is this draft a reliable source for this section of the article? Mainly the allegations of raping prisoners. Thanks. Kazemita1 ( talk) 10:37, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Article:
RF resonant cavity thruster
Primary source: A
June 2016 journal article in
AIP Advances
Main secondary source: An
article in the
International Business Times UK
---
There is an ongoing dispute at RF resonant cavity thruster (EMdrive) about the IBtimes, and whether they are a reliable source. In the section we have a peer reviewed primary source, and secondary sources by the International Business Times, Sciencealert, and Next Big Future. There is also a secondary source by the Daily Mail, but I don't really think they are a RS, and not necessary anyway, as we have other, better secondary sources. This is the section in dispute:
Scientists in Finland have proposed a possible explanation of this phenomenon involving the propagation of microwave photons leaking from the closed metal cavity and thereby producing an exhaust momentum, satisfying the classical action-reaction principle. [1] This explanation relies on the wave-particle duality of electromagnetic radiation, postulating that the stochastic phases of the microwaves will (with some probability) result in destructive interference between microwaves which cancels their electromagnetic fields but allows continued propagation of the microwave photon pairs, generating net thrust consistent with the impulse-momentum theorem depending on the asymmetric shape of the cavity. [1] [2] [3] [4]
References
Others, particularly Rolf H Nelson, Guy and TenOfAllTrades have called the above sourcing into question, saying that we should use 'editorial judgement' with regards to removing the material as not reliable. Rolf in particular has been extremely adamant about the IBTimes not being a reliable source, going as far as to remove the material on 7 different occasions (reverted by myself and several others). This is despite the fact that it is used widely throughout the rest of the RF resonant cavity thruster article and in at least one other related example a story that the IBTimes was picked up widely and reported by others ( notably by Popular Science) who seem to regard the IBTimes as a reliable source, even with regards to the EMdrive.
As we do not seem to be getting very far in resolving the issue on the talk page, I would like some discussion here on whether the view that this material should be removed is justified. Or whether this is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT.
Pinging involved editors not already mentioned above. Musashi miyamoto, Zedshort, mfb, Tokamac, Sparkyscience. Insert CleverPhrase Here 22:33, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
FTR status-quo ante is non-inclusion; but this WP:CONSENSUS dispute will be a matter for an administrator's noticeboard, not here. Some initial discussion in [21]. IMHO we should instead discuss, here, whether the WP:WEIGHT of the text's sources merit inclusion; despite disruptive behavior by certain pro-inclusion editors, the text can nevertheless be included if the RS board agrees it merits inclusion. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
"AIP Advances is a community-based journal, with a fast production cycle. The quick publication process and open-access model allows us to quickly distribute new scientific concepts. Our Editors, assisted by peer review, determine whether a manuscript is technically correct and original. After publication, the readership evaluates whether a manuscript is timely, relevant, or significant." [23] 2015 impact factor was 1.444. The publisher is legitimate: "AIP Publishing is a wholly owned not-for-profit subsidiary of the American Institute of Physics (AIP)". Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
The claims made in the paper, "On the exhaust of electromagnetic drive", is that photons can pass through arbitrary potential barriers if they are "out-of-phase" with one another, and that this provides an explanation for the emdrive. The out-of-phase argument is nonsense, but that requires some knowledge of quantum electrodynamics, or at least an understanding of how waves work, so the WP:FRINGE board might have more expertise if there's doubt about it being an "extraordinary claim". The claim has basically been ignored by the scientific community; without good WP:SECONDARY sources, it'll be hard to satisfy WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV on it even if we do include it. If there's a dispute that this is an extraordinary claim to which the "NEJM rule" should apply, then we should bring in the WP:FRINGE noticeboard, as they have more experience judging whether a claim is extraordinary. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
Dubious to me; I drafted
[24] to document the judgements of RS on IBTimes; "clickbait" and "content farm" are the key words. Rather than being founded by established journalists, the paper was allegedly founded as a way to make money for an dodgy cult "enigmatic religious figure". List of awards seems
unimpressive to me.
Rolf H Nelson (
talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
All that aside, this really looks like it'd meet Wikipedia's WP:RS standard in a general sense. Its not like we're talking about some obscure blog a guy started up in his basement last year or something. We're talking about a global company that's been around for over a decade, has a corporate staff that's college educated with Masters and PhDs with experience at other big corporations, and a massively detailed ethics and editorial policy detailed. Are they an authority on high science stuff you all are arguing about? I have no idea. Maybe not. But they don't have to be. Kotaku or Entertainment Weekly probably wouldn't be good sources for hard science either, but they're still considered reliable sources in their respective fields. You guys can keep hashing it out in the sections below on that, but I strongly oppose rejecting them wholesale on Wikipedia. Sergecross73 msg me 20:34, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
Dubious to me; for example [25] seems like clickbait: "In June, a young boy in India was snapping photos of clouds when he captured an image of what some thought may have been a flying saucer circling the skies. While some raised doubts as to whether the object was alien, others said it was definitive proof that UFOs exist, the Express reported"... "One of the more high-profile UFO sightings came after U.S. astronaut Scott Kelly tweeted a photo of the sky over India in November, showing a mysterious object in the picture’s corner. NASA didn’t offer an explanation, but at least one UFO hunter, Scott Waring, suggested that Kelly intentionally showed the UFO, trying to suggest that there may be aliens out there, the New York Post reported." Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
A look at the last five articles of the author in question, [26], gives [27] [28] [29] [30] [31], all five posted by Pandey in a seven-hour period. RS board editors can decide for themselves, but to me the article content of those five looks like a content farm based on rewriting press releases, with no effort to talk to independent scientists; thus to me the anonymous IBT employees' allegation that IBT often acts as a 'content farm' seems credible. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 20:57, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
Extremely dubious to me. The article, [32], has a subheader "A new study proves that the EmDrive does indeed have an exhaust" (Nobel prize time, then!) and has nuggets like "since 2012 nine independent studies have been carried out by scientists from China, Germany and even Nasa to try to build and test their own versions of the EmDrive. Although the researchers are not sure why, they have all discovered signals of thrust that cannot be explained" (In truth, many results were null, most of the various study authors have acknowledged that the signals could be experimental error, and the original Chinese scientists have even retracted their findings) and "The EmDrive does work, but there's still a long way to go." This is all NEJM stuff, but none of it appears to be true, and the article doesn't quote any scientists besides the paper's lead author. IMHO an WP:RS would have spoken with an independent physicist; again, even if we included the text, inclusion would create WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV problems. Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 22:08, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
I'd support including the above section, as written, because we are not endorsing the conclusions of the Finnish paper, we are merely saying that it exists, and has drawn popular notice; which it has. Yes, the IBTimes is not a great source for science. However, I would argue that the RF resonant cavity thruster isn't really presenting the thing as science, but as pseudoscience, which it is clearly categorized as ( Category:Pseudophysics is part of Category:Pseudoscience). If we could only include scientific papers as sources for pseudoscience articles, we'd need to delete most of our sections on Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Piltdown Man, the Flat Earth theory, etc. So not very scientific but popular sources should be par for the course. We just need to keep it objective, and short (since it hasn't drawn that much notice), both of which I think the proposed section does. -- GRuban ( talk) 17:53, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
We've had a lot of comment on the reliability of IBTimes for the above section, and still need more to decide consensus I think, as there seem to be two clear camps, but there has been little comment on ScienceAlert, which is a second source for the above section that also seems to be a reliable source strong enough to hang the section on. Put another way, even if we decided not to accept IBTtimes (which I don't agree with), we should also discuss this other source as it would also need to be discounted. Insert CleverPhrase Here 23:28, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
On December 20th, @ Knowledgebattle: went through approximately 50 pages, deleting all sources from websites owned by ECT News Network, primarily LinuxInsider, leaving edit summaries saying "ECT News (and it's extra platforms) is a scam site. Shouldn't be referenced." In subsequent discussion on his talk page, he expressed a willingness to discuss it here, but then did not follow through and two weeks later said "I forgot to care about this. I dunno, do whatever you want." What I want to do is get this sorted out. Can these sources be cited or not?
What makes this particularly egregious is that Knowledgebattle removed the citations carelessly, leaving many orphaned refs—and then when AnomieBot rescued them, he reverted AnomieBot's edits (see this edit to Wikipedia as an example). So several pages have had orphaned refs in them for two weeks now as a result, and whichever way this is decided these need to be fixed.
(@ David Gerard: @ Guy Macon: @ Icebob99: @ Shenme:)
ZackTheCardshark ( talk) 21:32, 4 January 2017 (UTC)
I am going to attempt to provide an overview of this issue.
There are four places where this is discussed. Might I propose that all future discussion be referred here so that we have one discussion in one place?
The four places are: Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#References to LinuxInsider and ECT network websites removed by KnowledgeBattle User:Knowledgebattle/interesting User talk:Knowledgebattle#LinuxInsider Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2016 December 20#LinuxInsider
First, let us have no more talk about sanctions, blocks, topic bans, etc. This is RSN, not ANI, and thus such discussion are inappropriate here.
OK, on to the main question. Knowledgebattle has presented evidence for CIO Today, CRM Daily, CRM Buyer, E-commerce Times, ECT News Network, Enterprise Security Today, LinuxInsider, NewsFactor, Sci-Tech Today, and TechNewsWorld having a common owner. (He got it wrong concerning FreeNewsFeed. That's a service offered by NewsFactor, not a site like the others)
However, as ZackTheCardshark asks, [34] "Is this particularly different from the way MacWorld, PCWorld, and TechHive are all part of the IDG network? Is that similarly problematic?"
So, on what basis does Knowledgebattle conclude that "having the same owner" equals "unreliable source"? Disney owns ABC, ESPN, A+E, Pixar, Lucasfilm and Marvel Studios. Does that make those sources unreliable? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 17:39, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
So since no one else has any objections, and user:Aspro makes a strong case, can we consider the source legitimate? If so, then I assume there are some tools available that can aid in restoring the references. Is there anyone who can do that? Or should this be requested on another noticeboard? ZackTheCardshark ( talk) 00:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
User talk:Knowledgebattle just silently deleted his "for all those wondering about why LinuxInsider was removed, I show the reason here" talk page entry, [35] all with zero effort to clean up the mess he made or have a substantive conversation about why so many people are pissed off at him. If he repeats the behavior, take him straight to WP:ANI. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 07:08, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
It would be useful if we could find a place to notate to users to not use Google's amp service as a reliable source and to instead use the actual originating source. Google's /amp/
service was blacklisted by request as it has been a means to get around blacklists, and that it was believed that we should not be using pseudo-source. I am currently seeing regular edit blocks on the urls for the amp service. I have amended the blacklist edit-blocking note to give a little more guidance, however telling users in a block message is too late, and we need to put something more overt and helpful to users. Thanks if someone can think of the best spot to add such a note. —
billinghurst
sDrewth 04:43, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
/amp/
so "www.google.com.br/amp/www.ibtimes.com/nikki-mudarris-love-triangle-blows-her-face-love-hip-hop-hollywood-season-3-episode-5-2418724" becomes "www.ibtimes.com/nikki-mudarris-love-triangle-blows-her-face-love-hip-hop-hollywood-season-3-episode-5-2418724" —
billinghurst
sDrewth 02:23, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/amp/amp.timeinc.net/fortune/2016/06/07/donald-trump-racism-quotes/%3Fsource%3Ddam?client=safari
. Removing google.com/amp/
results in a amp.timeinc.net
URL, generating a 404 error
[36]. I see no reliable and repeatable way to derive the original URL from the AMP URL other than loading the latter on a desktop device, where it redirects to the former. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 03:58, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
If AMP is blocked for potentially circumventing the blacklist, and AMP URLs usually contain the original URL as a substring, couldn’t we work around that by blocking the domain names as substrings? Or we could remove blacklisted AMPed links at the time of de-AMPing them, which would obviously be more of a delayed process than blacklisting. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 05:32, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
#t=1m23s
. And I disagree. You should include timecodes for the same reason you should include page numbers. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 00:44, 12 January 2017 (UTC)/
. —
67.14.236.50 (
talk) 00:41, 12 January 2017 (UTC)I have a question about a source at Jacob Barnett.
The relevant passage is this:
In 2011, following a series of (no longer available [1] [2] [3]) YouTube videos published by Barnett's mother, several articles appeared in the mainstream media...
This video does not exist.
The source I'd like to discuss is:
The apparent reason that this dead URL is being included is because, if you wanted to verify that this URL originally contained the now-unavailable (at that URL) video, then you could go to various Wikipedia talk page archives, and determine that some Wikipedia editors had viewed the video years ago and said that it contained the now-unavailable video.
I believe that this is insufficient to meet WP:V. First, it assumes that Wikipedia's past discussions are reliable sources for a BLP, even though WP:Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Second, the policy is that some people "can" verify whether or not this cited source contains the alleged information, not that "they could have checked this source, if they'd happened to have been around four years ago".
What do you think? Is this dead URL reliable for a claim in a BLP article that a particular video is "no longer available"? WhatamIdoing ( talk) 18:52, 8 January 2017 (UTC) Time ref fixed by 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 04:34, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
-- Auric talk 01:45, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
NOTE: if you change some of the digits randomly in the above URL, (basically creating a random youtube designation) you will get the same result (providing you dont get the astronomically bad luck of getting a designation that has been issued to a video). In other words, the page displayed is the same for youtube designations that have been deleted, as for youtube designations that have not been issued to a video yet. Therefore I don't see the link adding much of anything, unless another source specified an exact youtube designation. this page that is returned is simply youtubes version of a 404 page. Insert CleverPhrase Here 03:51, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
Whether we’re citing the video’s current state to an error message or we’re citing the video’s title to an archive page, we still have the reader investigating two separate links and visually comparing two URLs to verify the single claim that this was that video. Can anyone offer rationale for how this is not synthesis? Because it really looks like it to me. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 03:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
My question is specifically about whether it's possible for current and future readers to verify material using this YouTube URL. It appears from the above that even the proponents of including it agree that it is not. I hope that they will now explain which guideline says that Wikipedia articles must cite original sources for scientific ideas, and how a YouTube video by a 12 year old falls under that standard. (I have my doubts about both of those points, but perhaps Wikipedia has a guideline for astrophysics, and perhaps it is exactly the opposite of Wikipedia's well-known guideline for biomedical sciences.)
On the other sources, I consider this a bit of a tangent from my original question, but we've already gone three rounds on the question of other reliable sources that say the video isn't available, so let me give the RSN folks a short summary.
The proponents of including this statement have produced two news stories from a few years ago that they say "verifies" the non-availability of the video because those stories (a) linked to the original YouTube URL and (b) now those YouTube URLs don't work. These sources are included at the top of the section. They are:
What the other editors have asked for is:
That kind of source would let us know that:
So far, nobody seems to have found any human-written reliable sources talking about the broken URL. WhatamIdoing ( talk) 00:24, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
this kid is basically a victim of a book tour—That’s actually a good idea. But we need more sources about the aftermath, even if we don’t go that route; I think we only have two. But that’s a discussion more for the article than RSN. Same goes for everything in these replies, actually; none of it seems relevant to the question posed. — 67.14.236.50 ( talk) 02:35, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
I intended to use the source “Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age” to expand our article on the SCP Foundation. The source in question provides a lot of useful information on the SCP Foundation website that is not available in any other reliable source. For example, the source describes the website’s forums, deletion policy, application policy, and also gives an overview of the general structure of SCP articles that is much more through than the overview given by other sources. My problem with the source is that it is a doctoral thesis, rather than a traditionally published journal article. I have zero experience with this type of source, and our policy on reliable sources seemed kind of iffy on whether they were acceptable or not. I’d appreciate it if anyone more familiar with this type of source could provide some feedback on whether or not this is a useable source. The full citation is: Newsom, E. T. (2013). Participatory storytelling and the new folklore of the digital age (Order No. 3601025). Available from ProQuest Dissertations & Theses Global. (1466302542). url= http://search.proquest.com/docview/1466302542?accountid=11091 . Spirit of Eagle ( talk) 07:23, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Is this website) a reliable source? It seems to be different from this site. Thanks. -- Randykitty ( talk) 12:45, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
The source is an article from Ray al-Youm here. It's being used to support these statements in 1982 Iranian diplomats kidnapping:
According to the Rai al-Youm on-line newspaper, 'Abdeh Raji', known as 'Captain', and 'Biar Rizq', known as 'Akram', were involved in the abduction.
The abducted individuals were reportedly poisoned under the supervision of Elie Hobeika, a then Phalangist, in Karantina for 20 days and were moved to the prison of Adonis.
Later in 2016, according to what the London-based Rai al-Youm referred to as an accurate intelligence report, a recently released Greek prisoner from Israeli jails informed the Iranian embassy in Athens that he had seen the four abducted individuals alive in Israeli jails. Ahmad Habibollah Abu Hesham, known as a "spiritual father" of prisoners of Israeli jails, had made a similar comment that Motavesellian and the others were alive in Atlit detainee camp after visiting and inspecting prisoners in Israeli jails. He died in what Rai al-Youm claimed was a "made up accident by Israel."
Elie Hobeika verified the abduction of the diplomats and their handing over to Israel by Geagea's group
What our Wikipedia article refers to as a London-based online newspaper looks to me like a propaganda website run by an expat. I don't speak Arabic but I don't get the impression there's any real fact checking or editorial oversight involved. The Wikipedia article already suffers from a pro-Iranian bias due to the fact the there's not much interest in the subject from outlets outside the region. Chris Troutman ( talk) 17:03, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."-- Mhhossein talk 18:19, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
Are [42] and [43] reliable sources for the film budget and box office information in Ami Shudhu Cheyechi Tomay (4 citations)?
The website's home page shows "blog stats" and advertises "Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com." There is no "about us" or "contact us". The author of all content is identified only by the handle dhallywoodworld. There is no evidence of editorial review. I see no reputation for fact checking or accuracy. I haven't found any reliable sources that cite Box Office Bangladesh.
So my evaluation is that it is not a reliable source. It is cited in 17 Wikipedia articles, mostly by IPs (7 articles) and sockpuppets (6 articles), who may not know or care about Wikipedia policies and guidelines, but also by editors in good standing (4 articles). The author of List of highest grossing Bangladeshi films cited it, but included the disclaimer "There is no official tracking of figures, and sites publishing data are frequently pressured to increase their estimates", a caveat that was later removed by a sockpuppet. -- Worldbruce ( talk) 02:00, 13 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi, just trying to use The Intercept as a source. The Intercept journalist cites multiple military and intelligence sources stating that a subject of a Wikipedia article, Linda Norgrove, worked for British Intelligence. I'd like to make a brief note of this in her bio. Another editor undid my edit, said the source was not reliable (among other things).
Fx6893 ( talk) 06:09, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
I am looking at a source for record chart data originally published by Radio & Records magazine. The source, http://wweb.uta.edu/faculty/gghunt/charts/chart.html, while not the most sophisticated web design, appears to be the product of academic research by a Graham Hunt, Ph.D., Professor of Musicology and Music Theory at the University of Texas at Arlington. This research could possibly just be a hobby, although the site says Radio & Records granted permission to use the data which suggests an academic pursuit. Opinions and guidance would be greatly appreciated. Piriczki ( talk) 17:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
We can safely ignore Hunt himself and his lack of credentials, as he works with published data from the magazine. The question is if the magazine is reliable and whether we can quote their data. Dimadick ( talk) 08:19, 17 January 2017 (UTC)