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 217 | Archive 218 | Archive 219 | Archive 220 | Archive 221 | → | Archive 225 |
I don't think an article that identifies fake medical journals should be used to identify real medical journals as such. Others seem to disagree and will not help me find better sources. [1]
Please advise.
Two articles where this is being done:
Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Acupuncture in Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article being referenced: [2]
jps ( talk) 16:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
CINAHL calls it a medical journal, so does Current Contents (which lists it under "Clinical Medicine"), Index Medicus, and the Journal Citation Reports. These are all reliable sources. You, on the other hand, have a blog post that says it's "fake". And of course your own infallible opinion, lest I forget that. So unless you can come up with reliable sources that say something else, we're done here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. That's not the impression I get from our own article on the subject: medical journal. jps ( talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Does the book "The Management of Official Records in Public Institutions in Sri Lanka: 1802–1990 by S. S. K. Wickramanayaka" count as a reliable source? This source is being used in /info/en/?search=Kachcheri, "Kachcheri is a Hindustani word[3] initially used for the Revenue Collector's Office in the early years of the British Colonial Administration in Ceylon."
[3] - The Management of Official Records in Public Institutions in Sri Lanka: 1802–1990 by S. S. K. Wickramanayaka.
Other than this book, there is no proof that indicates this word to be of Hindustani origin. I have provided sources including the Tamil dictionary that indicates this word to be Tamil, but it has been reverted many times, with indicating this source to be more reliable. Please, also check the /info/en/?search=Talk:Kachcheri
Muvendar ( talk) 12:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The blocked User:Mkd07 and their various Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkd07/Archive socks made liberal use of a particular reference. "History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations, Tome Egumenoski & Aleksandar Donski, 2012". Recently the Mkd07 sockpuppet User:ConstantinVacheron used it to support their creation of a now-deleted article, Phosphate analysis in archaeological sites. The article cited p.8 of the source in question but the article content was actually a near copy-paste from the open-access Sassa website.
"History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations" seems not to have been published online. Wikibin has a brief summary of its authorship and content but I can find no peer reviews of the work itself. A search for its "main author" (Tome Egumenoski) draws a blank - more or less. It seems likely that the cited translator is one and the same as the Aleksandar Donski who has a YouTube page, dedicated to various Macedonian, Balkan-related (and apparently controversial) historical claims. An article about the cited work was created and maintained by Mkd07/their sockpuppets until its deletion. [3]
I'm doing my utmost here to assume good faith here, despite the socking, but the work (assuming it exists in paper form) seems self-published at best. Apologies for not giving diffs here; if I gave them, there would still be no way to verify the information they were supposed to support. The source should not be used for any Wikipedia article, imo. Haploidavey ( talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if Military Press, more specifically their reviews, would be seen as a reliable source. I haven't heard of them before, but they do have an editorial staff and it doesn't look like they sell articles or are fly by night. What do you guys think? I'm leaning towards it being usable for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears to have substantial distribution in the San Diego area etc., and, as such, is at least the equivalent of any newspaper with similar free distribution. [6] asserts coverage of 200,000 military personnel with a distribution of 75,000 copies. Reviews are opinions, per se, and thus are generally usable if cited and ascribed as such. Collect ( talk) 13:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm reposting this item that was brought up but not commented on; now with additional notes.
According to an independent investigation, NextBigWhat is a fake news site that pumps itself with fake twitter and Google+ followers: http://inc42.com/longform/nextbigwhat-fake-social-media-ethical/. Less reliable sources (e.g. quora.com) say that it's a paid advertorial site a la YourStory (blacklisted on Wikipedia).
Many articles citing this source are created with severe conflicts of interest or undisclosed paid editing; details are at WP:COIN#YourStory.com ( permalink). This may be related to the fact that NextBigWhat allows submittal of startup stories by PR interests or others (/submit-your-startup page on their website).
The community may read this and decide that this is not an RS for business-related articles. - Brianhe ( talk) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Beall's list is down. All content appears to have been removed from scholarlyoa.com - is this the result of legal thuggery? Guy ( Help!) 21:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Would the response to a freedom of information request be considered a reliable source? For example, a WP editor has made a FoI request to a local governmental authority to ask about a certain piece of information or data; the response to that FoI request is published on [www.whatdotheyknow.com this website]. Is the information contained therein allowed to be used as the solitary source for content on WP? -- TBM10 ( talk) 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Question: Are the comments relative to India supposed to be under the previous headline?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Would this piece be considered a sufficiently reliable source or external link for the article on Soka Gakkai? John Carter ( talk) 18:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
In the article Hydrocodone/paracetamol, it has Euphoria [1] listed as a side effect, with source 2 confirming that. However I have read over the documents and did not find sufficient evidence to uphold this. I am looking for feedback on my analysis, and willing to work with someone who is more experienced in helping newbies like me. Thanks!
--
ExpertListener95 (
talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
On the Type_039A_submarine, the webpage http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/039ab.htm is used as a source. From what I can tell from a Google Translate, the page draws information from amateur sources, while other parts are apparently drawn from news and reports (names and dates of sources are given, but no links.)
The editors don't seem to have any particular qualifications; the site seems to be for a military history hobby group ( [8], [9]).
Is this site reliable/useful for Wikipedia purposes? - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I came to this page as I knew nothing about the product and wanted to learn more. As I laid out on the article's Talk page, I could not tell the difference between the Wikipedia article and the sales pitch I had received in an email. The whole article seemed liked a combination of a manual on how to use the product as well as a pitch on why to use it. A seeming majority of the sources appear to be from Scrum or Scrum-affiliated websites and have Scrum in their URLs. Throughout the article regular common nouns are Capitalized The Way A Marketer Would Capitalize Common Nouns to make references to the product seem more important and proprietary. The maintenance tags were repeatedly taken down without any conversation about their merit and just out-of-hand dismissed despite some good-faith efforts on the talk page, but refusal to go into specifics. It's possible all the involved editors are adherents/users/subscribers of the article's subject and therefore do not have the partiality to discuss it in a neutral manner, but I really think the article needs better sources as well as disinterested eyes. JesseRafe ( talk) 16:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello all,
It seems the editor User:Sitush feels that the source s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India is biased, or as he says "unreliable". I have found a similar discussion with this editor from a few months ago, where the previous opposition made a few good points (albeit in a crude manner), and cannot find any valid rebuttals by Sitush in that thread before it was derailed. I note that at least one editor asked why the source was unreliable and did not get a reasonable response.
I also note that many of the sources discussed, including the one provided by Sitush himself in the discussion above, all are in general agreement with the text that is being cited in the article Phulkian sardars (Bhati Rao of Jaisalmar was a Rajput [forget the golden fort part for now], and this was the branch responsible for the Sidhu Jats). Since it does seem that Sitush is of a religious denomination that may have some conflict with the legitimate content that is supported by British sources, in no small part due to the history and evolution of British rule in India, I am asking if others can objectively contest whether the Imperial Gazetteer of India is unreliable.
It seems this is a good source used for many articles involving India, and provides us with some confidence that there is corroboration of claims from a non-ethnic source. Is this wrong? I note this source is also on wikisource. Surely the editor has erred? Also, it seems William Wilson Hunter (the visionary behind this compendium) isn't somebody whose life work we dismiss with blanket arguments like "Raj sources not reliable"? I have not seen anything from the opposition that provides strong counter claims to what is provided in the multitude of sources supporting the content he disputes.
Some articles I've found that this source is used in:
(etc)
It really does seem this is a good quality source that the opposition does not like due to the content, and not the source.
edit: Hello everyone. It seems User:Sitush and User:Bishonen are ignoring Wikipedia ettiquette, where item (3) on What is Wikisource? article clearly states wikisource provides wp:RS, thus refuting alleged bias claimed by these editors. Can we please get some action on this matter? It seems Bishonen was involved previously as well, and as an administrator he is ignoring the established criteria of Wikisource. I also find it very curious that Bishonen called following protocol 'disruptive editing'. I will be posting htis on the administrator's noticeboard as wel. Thank you.
But the British Government, established at Delhi since 1803,
intervened with an offer of protection to all the CIS-SUTLEJ STATES;
and Dhanna Singh gladly availed himself of the promised aid, being
one of the first chieftains to accept British protection and control. [2]
I felt that what was added yesterday only emphasised the correctness of the content originally removed by Sitush and Bishonen approximately three months ago. Thank you for your time— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.118.151 ( talk) 16:36, January 22, 2017
References
References
About the time of the first Muhammadan invasions a colony of Bhatti Rajputs from Jaisalmer settled in the neighbourhood of Mukhtsar, and the Manj, a branch of them, ousted the Ponwars and became converts to Islam about 1288."Ferozepur District". The Imperial Gazetteer of India. Vol. 12. 1908. p. 90.
About the end of the sixteenth century the Sidhu Jats, from whom the Phulkian Rajas are descended, made their appearance; and in the middle of the seventeenth century most of the Jat tribes were converted to Sikhism by Har Rai, the seventh Guru.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
. Vol. 12. 1908.
The Siddhu story is that they are descended from the Bhatti Rajput prince Jaisal, the founder of Jaisalmer, and the families that claim this descent in the present day are in order of seniority Kaithal, Jhumba, Arnauli and Sadhowal, descended from Siddhu's eldest son Dhar, then Nabha and Jind descended from Tilokha, the eldest son of Phul the senior eponym in descent from Siddhu, and the branches of Jind, Badrukhan and Dialpura... This gives us seventeen leading families from this one stock alone. Fortunately the dates of the leading names in the tree up to Jaisal are well ascertained, for Jaisal himself died in 1168. A. D and was succeeded by his eldest son Salbahan (not the great Salbahan), while his second son Hemal (died in 1214), sought his fortunes, in the Punjab and founded the Siddhu tribe, through Siddhu the sixth in descent from him. From whom the ninth is Barar, at which point the Faridkot line breaks off calling themselves Barar, and then twelfth from Barar comes Phul (died in 1652) from who the great families all spring.
The ruling family are of the same stock as those of Patiala and Jind, being Sidhu Jat Sikhs, counting back to the illustrious Phul. The foundations of the house were laid by Hamir Singh, who joined his Sikh brethren in the capture of Sarhand about the middle of the last century, and obtained as his reward the pargana of Amloh.
Born in 1843; succeeded to the gadi 9th June 1871. Belongs to the great Sidhu Jat family, known as the Phulkian family, from its founder Phul; which has given ruling families to Patiala, Jind, Nabha, Bhadaur, and other Punjab states. The Raja of Nabha is descended from Tiloka, eldest son of Phul; whose great-grandson, Hamir Singh, founded the town of Nabha in 1755 A.D. He joined the Sikh Chiefs in the great battle of Sirhind, when Zain Khan, the Muhammadan Viceroy, was slain; and established a mint at Nabha, as a mark of independence.
This site seems to get used for two things. First, for news; it acts as an aggregate for articles published elsewhere, and since Deagel provides links to those it seems superfluous to use Deagel in this manner.
The second is for technical details for particular weapon systems; the site is like a mini-encyclopedia. However, like a lot of sites that do that, it doesn't show where it gets its information from.
I also have not been able to find much about the qualifications of the person(s) who run the site. http://www.whois.com/whois/deagel.com seems to suggest it's a one person operation (it's registered under "GAS DEAGEL".) My wariness is further increased by the country forecast for 2025; the view it takes seems very fringe.
Would this site be considered reliable/useful for Wikipedia purposes? - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 09:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
A source was recently added at the article spinal manipulation, it has been reverted for being an unreliable source. I am looking for the opinions of other editors.
The problem is not with ethnic origin, but with an academic/political "scientific" culture which does not test hypotheses. That problem occurs to some extent anywhere - would you trust a tobacco company on the dangers of smoking? - but seems to be pretty much universal in some nations, being even worse when matters of national pride are involved. The test for reliability therefore include the academic affiliations and bases of the authors and the journal, and the relevance of the subject matter to points of national pride. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
For future reference, if nothing else, it is possibly worth noting that multiple reliable sources relating to Qigong fever have attested to the fact that at least during the peak of that era the government of the PRC was actively promoting several forms of traditional Chinese medicine both as, in a sense, an "opiate of the masses" for those who could not afford the more expensive and less readily available, generally considered more reliable, Western forms of medicine, and as a way to promote the Chinese cultural heritage, and thus also promote a "collective mindset" among the Chinese people. So far as I know, the government of the PRC is still, at least to an extent, actively promoting such thinking, and, on that basis, any sources which might be seen as in any way promoting these Chinese traditional practices which lack much outside support but seem to be have in some way linkage to Chinese governmental policies and practices should be considered suspect. John Carter ( talk) 15:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
At History of Indigenous Australians, the website 'Australia: The Land Where Time Began / A Biography of the Australian Continent' (specifically http://austhrutime.com/malakunanja.htm) is used to source the statement:
The rock shelters at Malakunanja II (a shallow rock-shelter about 50 kilometres inland from the present coast) and of Nauwalabila I (70 kilometres further south) show evidence of used pieces of ochre – evidence for paint used by artists 60,000 years ago.
The wording is a bit of a mess, but I'm looking for comments specifically on the source. It looks a lot like a self-published more-or-less-blog to me, but wanted to get a second opinion. I don't think the content itself is particularly controversial. The source itself cites further sources, and it would probably be more appropriate to use them, but I don't have easy access to them and I'm guessing this is why someone used the web source in the first place. GoldenRing ( talk) 13:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi all,
Having trouble with some other editors about whether or not I'm allowed to use certain sources as references in my articles.
Sites:
A series of books were written by Bray, Vincent and Daryl M. Gregory over the period 2009-2014 listing most but not all of the details on Vincent's site; and Vincent also hosts a plethora of official Victorian Railways diagrams and detailed photographs not included in those books. Similarly, Bray's site has dated photos that can be used for locating individual vehicles; and Daryl Gregory has a limited presence on Facebook, identity confirmed within private groups like Victorian Railway Enthusiasts. The fact that the group(s) is/are closed isn't a problem according to WP:IRS's talk page:
Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy.
Additionally, the vast majority of people likely to read the relevant pages will already have (or will easily be able to get) access to the relevant forums.
To a lesser extent, these sites, which host personal photos but also content scanned directly from archives, i.e. diagrams.
These are for most/all of the articles listed in the VRLocos template, about half of which I've written and nearly all of which I've contributed to.
In both cases, this is based on the reliability of the individuals' posts and printed/published works (i.e. in the magazine Newsrail) over more than a decade.
How do I get these people individually approved as sources, and then how do I make them immune to future deletion by editors who don't see this thread? One solution might be to add an entry on the Template linking to a list of reliable sources applicable only to those articles? Anothersignalman ( talk) 15:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Would the website Phactual be considered as an RS for reference to a US legal case? this Is the one more specifically. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 09:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about using this anonymous group [15] as a source for anything. It's used in multiple articles [16] including BLPs such as Mansour Mohamed Abdul Fattah al-Moslah. Looking at GNews I see two uses of it. I can't see how it qualifies as a reliable source at all. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute with another editor, which is (in part) about the RSness of The Independent newspaper, and in particular about this article's claim "In just one weekend, the website has posted false statistics about rising crime, when crime has actually gone down over the last eight years." which is misleading and wrong. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alternative-facts-white-house-website-donald-trump-fake-crimes-statistics-lgbt-climate-change-pages-a7540841.html. You are welcome to weigh in on our discussion, but I want to raise a more general point - can the Independent be considered a Reliable Source any more? Their standards have plummeted and they're basically a clickbait operation now, a shadow of the newspaper they used to be.
Evidence:
References
My understanding is that sources are not automatically rejected for simple facts just because they have some POV on a topic, and that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. However @ Springee: and @ Niteshift36: seem to be arguing that if there's a consensus to leave criminal usage out of an article then none of the sources can mention the criminal usage either. If so, that would seriously skew the neutrality of an article because almost all articles in mainstream sources, both academic and journalistic, discuss this rifle in the context of its criminal use. In the process, they mention other facts about it, including its sales. Sales figures are a common thing to report for a commercial product. To reduce the quality of an article in order to enforce a POV policy on sources is misguided, in my opinion. Amy I wrong? What the right way to interpret WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR in this case? Felsic2 ( talk) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You avoided answering the question when I asked. Given you want to cite production numbers there should be no issues with citing them from the ATF (a more reliable source than your articles) vs an article that doesn't state where it's numbers came from and another that says it got the numbers from the ATF. We can cut out the middle man. It's insulting to others to claim your only intent is to provide production figures. Consider that a link to the ATF data would provide information for all years vs just a select few. Springee ( talk) 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
To me, we have the question "can 'hard facts' like production numbers be sourced to secondary sources that are clearly biased in tone?" There's a lot of issues at play, but to summarize this:
So using the BATFE's numbers directly should be fine, and we don't have to include the secondary sources. Now if we were talking about a non-essential figure, such as the number of crimes that a certain gun was used in, even if still sourceable by the BATFE, this is where the presence of secondary sources is required, to tell us that, as a transformative source, why that figure was important and to put it into perspective. And that's where if there's a source bias, that could be a problem to include, since many biased sources will play with statistics to get the point they want to prove. That's where the evaluation of the opinion using those statistics for inclusion under UNDUE/FRINGE may be necessary. If a gun is widely criticized as being too frequently used in crime, then we can use these sources to justify that. If these are the only two sources in the world that consider the gun being used too often, and no one else addresses that, then perhaps this is too FRINGE-y to include. -- MASEM ( t) 18:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
What's the rule on interpreting primary sources? WP:PRIMARY? Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The BATFE [17] and Shooting Industry sources [18] don't mention the topic of the article, the M&P15. Instead, they report on all rifle sales by Smith & Wesson. So we'd have to take a different source, which says that S&W's only rifle for a span of years was the M&P15. Would that cause a problem with WP:SYNTH? It seems like it'd just be simpler to stick with the reliable secondary sources already in use. Felsic2 ( talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Source:
Article:
Content:
In 1950, the temple was suspected to be set on fire by radical Christian extremists which destroyed the entire temple and had to be reconstructed.
Is there any merit in the aforementioned sources? I had a dispute with a editor who questions reliability of these sources. Advice ? Crawford88 ( talk) 07:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Cohler has proposed that the Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) is not a reliable source, because "it is a summary and therefore can lead to misinterpretations" as stated here (be aware User:Cohler signs as TheClarinetGuy). I do not see any indication in Wikipedia:Verifiability that summaries are inherently unreliable. Note also that in this case that the summary is written by a subset of the authors of the longer report. Am I perhaps missing something? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I propose this thread be closed pursuant to WP:MULTI. At article talk Cohler is asserting all of these arguments, but has abandoned claims that the IPCC Summary for PolicyMakers does not qualify as a WP:Reliable sources. Instead, we're now rehashing arguments about how and if it should be used in terms of WEIGHT, etc. Since its no longer a question of reliability, we should consolidate the multiple venues into just a single venue.... at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The following shows how easy it has become to fake a YouTube video using an ordinary PC.
I can only assume that someone with a lot more money and a lot more time can do a much more realistic fake. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this reliable? http://vesselnews.io/shock-video-black-lives-matter-activist-says-need-start-killing-people
Benjamin ( talk) 03:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You need to tell us what you want to use the source as a reference for (and in which article) if you hope to get a useful response. The source looks to be very poor quality though. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, not for that video's content - or for opinions about its content. An non-RS source commenting on an unnamed individual with unspecified connections to BLM (beyond being at their rally) voicing their personal extremist opinions makes for nothing usable for Wikipedia content. Of course, based on the way Wikipedia seems to be working these days, if it were the other way around - an unnamed individual with unspecified connections to Trump (beyond being at a supporters rally) voicing their personal extremist opinions - then it would be considered a verbatim repeating of Donald Trump's policy position and the position of everyone who voted for him! Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 17:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The source is an article from Rai 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 article is a GA nominee so I need an answer for the source's appropriateness. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."Moreover, the mentioned part is well attributed to the source for maintaining the overall NPOV. -- Mhhossein talk 22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
On the BLP article for Jessica Yellin, this edit introduced the following content about her personal life:
Yellin keeps a low profile and keeps her personal life unknown.
The content is sourced to http://frostsnow.com/jessica-yellin.
Is FrostSnow.com a reliable source for this BLP content?
Thank you! SueDonem ( talk) 21:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Why Progressives Are Wrong to Argue Against Cultural Appropriation http://observer.com/2015/11/why-progressives-are-wrong-to-argue-against-cultural-appropriation/ Is this a reliable source? Benjamin ( talk) 08:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Are books that publish creationist theory automatically not RS (As seems to be being cleaimed here [30] and specifically in relation to this source [31] and it's claim that someone is a scientist? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Now to add, as this is getting all rather nasty over at the talk page, is this RS for the claim he is a scientist? [32]. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Source: [33]
Article: American Legislative Exchange Council or to be within a new article
Content:
At ALEC’s 2016 annual meeting in July, the Convention of States was made a top priority. ALEC has adopted model rules for an Article V convention and gave its members model language for a resolution to call for a convention. The “ State Legislators Article V Caucus” of the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF) is dominated by ALEC legislators, and pro-convention advocacy groups including BBATF and Convention of States are part of ALEC.
I had a dispute with 2 editors who question the reliability of the source, In These Times, as a longstanding socialist magazine. Help please.
Calexit (
talk) 18:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the source I'm talking about -- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd?file=The+Search+for+Joshuas+Ai.pdf --- it's a paper that was published to the journal of Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, a peer-reviewed journal. It has been cited multiple times in scholarly material, such as the 2014 book 'The Authors of the Deuteronomic History' by Brian Neil Peterson, page 94. It is also cited in the scholarly work 'The Israelite conquest : history or myth? : an achaeological evaluation of the Israelite conquest during the periods of Joshua and the Judges' -- in page 159. It is cited in this paper --- http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/0334435515Z.00000000044. These are a few examples to show it has been cited a number of times in many scholarly works -- all the sources that cite it can be found here in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=13627279837402623804&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en --- the author of the paper in question is Bryant Wood who has a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology and was the excavation director for the ancient site Khirbet el-Maqatir, which is a site that is part of the main discussion in the source that I'm asking evaluation for. In other words, the author of the paper is a PhD in the field, the paper is peer-reviewed and published into a respected archaeological and academic journal, and it has been cited many times in scholarly material. I think this easily qualifies WP:IRS. Any thoughts on agreeing or disagreeing? Korvex ( talk) 04:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Some corrections:
(1) Critical Issues in Early Israelite History is not a journal at all. It was published as a supplement of the Bulletin for Biblical Research, a publication of the Institute for Biblical Research, which "offer[s] to evangelical biblical scholars and Ph.D. students a venue for creative, reflective and serious biblical scholarship". I.e., it publishes articles by people who pass the right ideological test. The volume is the outcome of a weekend conference and I can't find any evidence of peer review.
(2) The paper
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/0334435515Z.00000000044 by a famous Israeli archaeologist definitely does not cite it, regardless of what Google scholar says. In fact it doesn't cite any of the 12 authors of Critical Issues for any their work.
(3) "The Israelite conquest : history or myth?" which Korvex strangely does not provide a URL for, is a
Masters thesis, so not even citable itself.
(4) Assistant professor of Old Testament Brian Neil Peterson works with the Associates for Biblical Research (Bryant Wood's outfit), so he is hardly a supportive example.
Altogether the case for this source is very weak.
Zero
talk 07:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
References
There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the participants of this board.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Emmett_Till#Emmett_Till_lead_sentence_RFC ResultingConstant ( talk) 17:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This talk section was set up on the Religiosity and intelligence article to discuss my removal of this material given a source of "The myth of the smarter atheist. This source is a self published opinion piece, and violates WP:RS, and makes an extraordinary claim, as a lone source, so does not make the exceptions listed under WP:SELFSOURCE. Ramos1990 ( talk · contribs) is insisting it is a quality source, however it is clearly not. The article is balanced, as it includes ACTUAL published counterarguments-not self published opinion pieces. The fact that it is a self published opinion, contradicts the WP:SCIRS statement that "Most books and monographs that are self-published or published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and consequently are not reliable sources."
The text is as follows
The Lynn et al. study has been criticized by Artificial Intelligence researcher Randy Olson who has noted that the correlation between wealth and intelligence is stronger and more suited to explain the differences in IQ because countries with lower IQ scores are less developed and countries with high IQ scores are highly developed. Furthermore, he notes countries with 20% atheists or more, which also happen to be highly developed countries, actually flatline at 100 IQ on average rather than increase in IQ. Furthermore, more atheists in a population do not equate to increases in IQ since countries with populations that have virtually 0% atheists have scored more than 100 IQ. [1]
and
When looking at Kanazawa's paper on individual religiosity, or atheism, and intelligence, Olson noted that both the most religious people and atheists were all within the bounds of "average intelligence" (90–109) and from a practical point, the level of intelligence is indistinguishable from the other since they both scored very close to each other. [1]
Petergstrom (
talk) 18:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that while self published source by an established expert may be used, it is nevertheless never an optimal source and peer reviewed source are to be preferred. In addition the more contentious or problematic a topic gets the better the sources should be. Based on that even if you see Olson here as an expert, his self published sources should not be used here due to the contentious nature of the subject. Instead only reputable peer reviewed sources by him or others should be used.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Appreciate your collective inputs. Most editors here see value in Dr. Olson's observations which are not extraordinary (even the paper Olson critiques noted better correlations between national IQs and education), but as others have mentioned that though the source can be used with caution (per WP policy), a source with some degree of oversight is preferable due to the controversial nature of the topic. Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 02:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Source:
http://www.historyofjihad.org/philippines.html
Article:
Ma-i, any other references to Philippine protohistory (between 900 and 1521 AD)
Content: "Before they reached the shores of Luzon, they subjugated the Buddhist Huangdom of Mai and that lead to its decline.The Buddhist culture of Mindoro gradually disappeared after Bolkiah forced the citizens of Mai to converted their faith to Islam. They forcibly converted and conquered people up to the fall of the Kingdom of Tondo."
Query: Requesting community consensus on the reliability of historyofjihad.org as a source. In this case, I think the text is actually a violation of WP:SYNTH, and I may take action to remove it on that basis soon. However, I want to know if there's anything in the source that is salvagable for the article. Before I do that, I'd like to ask if the community thinks the page is a reliable source? I'm not convinced it is, so I'm requesting feedback. Thanks! - Alternativity ( talk) 08:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The site doesn't look scholarly at all and frankly seems a bit agenda driven, so it does not qualify as a reliable source.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:LGBT rights table Europe
The source is cited 21 times, apparently mostly for the claim that sterilization is required in some countried before legal recognition of gender change. The source also says that numerous countries (Ireland, Lithuania, etc.) do not allow legal gender change. Our ... article (template?) lists a number of these countries as legally allowing gender change.
I know there is a lot of nuance in these cases, but it seems like if our article is going to declare a source to be wrong on some points (by saying that country X allows gender change), we shouldn't be assuming it is right on others (the places it is currently cited).
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Is mlbtraderumors.com a reliable source on the Kris Bryant BLP? Is the use of that source, if reliable, something to be quoted exactly in the BLP? I first thought it was a simple copyvio, but then reflected that the source did not sound really major. Collect ( talk) 22:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm having a small disagreement with @ Dan56: about the use of Acclaimed Music in the article Call the Doctor. In my opinion, Acclaimed Music is a tertiary source and therefore cannot be used to cite individual review scores. Instead, secondary sources should be used. Dan56 disagrees and thinks the source can be used to cite scores otherwise not easily accessible. I should also note that Acclaimed Music is not listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. More feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
On the matter of scores and ratings, Henrik Franzon would appear reliable.
Dan56 (
talk) 14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Hello everyone. I was wondering if I could use the following source for the Liz Sanbourne page: 1? I would be using it for the "Critical reception" subsection as the website talks about how Marshall breaks the traditional look for women on soap operas. However, I am assuming that this site would not be usable on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to double-check to make sure. Thank you in advance and I apologize if this is obvious. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:35, 6 February 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 217 | Archive 218 | Archive 219 | Archive 220 | Archive 221 | → | Archive 225 |
I don't think an article that identifies fake medical journals should be used to identify real medical journals as such. Others seem to disagree and will not help me find better sources. [1]
Please advise.
Two articles where this is being done:
Journal of Acupuncture and Meridian Studies ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Acupuncture in Medicine ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Article being referenced: [2]
jps ( talk) 16:14, 12 January 2017 (UTC)
CINAHL calls it a medical journal, so does Current Contents (which lists it under "Clinical Medicine"), Index Medicus, and the Journal Citation Reports. These are all reliable sources. You, on the other hand, have a blog post that says it's "fake". And of course your own infallible opinion, lest I forget that. So unless you can come up with reliable sources that say something else, we're done here. -- Randykitty ( talk) 16:06, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Interesting. That's not the impression I get from our own article on the subject: medical journal. jps ( talk) 19:59, 14 January 2017 (UTC)
Does the book "The Management of Official Records in Public Institutions in Sri Lanka: 1802–1990 by S. S. K. Wickramanayaka" count as a reliable source? This source is being used in /info/en/?search=Kachcheri, "Kachcheri is a Hindustani word[3] initially used for the Revenue Collector's Office in the early years of the British Colonial Administration in Ceylon."
[3] - The Management of Official Records in Public Institutions in Sri Lanka: 1802–1990 by S. S. K. Wickramanayaka.
Other than this book, there is no proof that indicates this word to be of Hindustani origin. I have provided sources including the Tamil dictionary that indicates this word to be Tamil, but it has been reverted many times, with indicating this source to be more reliable. Please, also check the /info/en/?search=Talk:Kachcheri
Muvendar ( talk) 12:18, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The blocked User:Mkd07 and their various Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Mkd07/Archive socks made liberal use of a particular reference. "History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations, Tome Egumenoski & Aleksandar Donski, 2012". Recently the Mkd07 sockpuppet User:ConstantinVacheron used it to support their creation of a now-deleted article, Phosphate analysis in archaeological sites. The article cited p.8 of the source in question but the article content was actually a near copy-paste from the open-access Sassa website.
"History And Archaeology Through Laboratory Examinations" seems not to have been published online. Wikibin has a brief summary of its authorship and content but I can find no peer reviews of the work itself. A search for its "main author" (Tome Egumenoski) draws a blank - more or less. It seems likely that the cited translator is one and the same as the Aleksandar Donski who has a YouTube page, dedicated to various Macedonian, Balkan-related (and apparently controversial) historical claims. An article about the cited work was created and maintained by Mkd07/their sockpuppets until its deletion. [3]
I'm doing my utmost here to assume good faith here, despite the socking, but the work (assuming it exists in paper form) seems self-published at best. Apologies for not giving diffs here; if I gave them, there would still be no way to verify the information they were supposed to support. The source should not be used for any Wikipedia article, imo. Haploidavey ( talk) 15:10, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi! I was wondering if Military Press, more specifically their reviews, would be seen as a reliable source. I haven't heard of them before, but they do have an editorial staff and it doesn't look like they sell articles or are fly by night. What do you guys think? I'm leaning towards it being usable for the most part. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 14:54, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
It appears to have substantial distribution in the San Diego area etc., and, as such, is at least the equivalent of any newspaper with similar free distribution. [6] asserts coverage of 200,000 military personnel with a distribution of 75,000 copies. Reviews are opinions, per se, and thus are generally usable if cited and ascribed as such. Collect ( talk) 13:45, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm reposting this item that was brought up but not commented on; now with additional notes.
According to an independent investigation, NextBigWhat is a fake news site that pumps itself with fake twitter and Google+ followers: http://inc42.com/longform/nextbigwhat-fake-social-media-ethical/. Less reliable sources (e.g. quora.com) say that it's a paid advertorial site a la YourStory (blacklisted on Wikipedia).
Many articles citing this source are created with severe conflicts of interest or undisclosed paid editing; details are at WP:COIN#YourStory.com ( permalink). This may be related to the fact that NextBigWhat allows submittal of startup stories by PR interests or others (/submit-your-startup page on their website).
The community may read this and decide that this is not an RS for business-related articles. - Brianhe ( talk) 17:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
Beall's list is down. All content appears to have been removed from scholarlyoa.com - is this the result of legal thuggery? Guy ( Help!) 21:44, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
Would the response to a freedom of information request be considered a reliable source? For example, a WP editor has made a FoI request to a local governmental authority to ask about a certain piece of information or data; the response to that FoI request is published on [www.whatdotheyknow.com this website]. Is the information contained therein allowed to be used as the solitary source for content on WP? -- TBM10 ( talk) 09:37, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Question: Are the comments relative to India supposed to be under the previous headline?-- Jim in Georgia Contribs Talk 20:50, 22 January 2017 (UTC)
Would this piece be considered a sufficiently reliable source or external link for the article on Soka Gakkai? John Carter ( talk) 18:50, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
In the article Hydrocodone/paracetamol, it has Euphoria [1] listed as a side effect, with source 2 confirming that. However I have read over the documents and did not find sufficient evidence to uphold this. I am looking for feedback on my analysis, and willing to work with someone who is more experienced in helping newbies like me. Thanks!
--
ExpertListener95 (
talk) 14:41, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
On the Type_039A_submarine, the webpage http://www.mdc.idv.tw/mdc/navy/china/039ab.htm is used as a source. From what I can tell from a Google Translate, the page draws information from amateur sources, while other parts are apparently drawn from news and reports (names and dates of sources are given, but no links.)
The editors don't seem to have any particular qualifications; the site seems to be for a military history hobby group ( [8], [9]).
Is this site reliable/useful for Wikipedia purposes? - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 10:16, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
I came to this page as I knew nothing about the product and wanted to learn more. As I laid out on the article's Talk page, I could not tell the difference between the Wikipedia article and the sales pitch I had received in an email. The whole article seemed liked a combination of a manual on how to use the product as well as a pitch on why to use it. A seeming majority of the sources appear to be from Scrum or Scrum-affiliated websites and have Scrum in their URLs. Throughout the article regular common nouns are Capitalized The Way A Marketer Would Capitalize Common Nouns to make references to the product seem more important and proprietary. The maintenance tags were repeatedly taken down without any conversation about their merit and just out-of-hand dismissed despite some good-faith efforts on the talk page, but refusal to go into specifics. It's possible all the involved editors are adherents/users/subscribers of the article's subject and therefore do not have the partiality to discuss it in a neutral manner, but I really think the article needs better sources as well as disinterested eyes. JesseRafe ( talk) 16:45, 23 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello all,
It seems the editor User:Sitush feels that the source s:The Imperial Gazetteer of India is biased, or as he says "unreliable". I have found a similar discussion with this editor from a few months ago, where the previous opposition made a few good points (albeit in a crude manner), and cannot find any valid rebuttals by Sitush in that thread before it was derailed. I note that at least one editor asked why the source was unreliable and did not get a reasonable response.
I also note that many of the sources discussed, including the one provided by Sitush himself in the discussion above, all are in general agreement with the text that is being cited in the article Phulkian sardars (Bhati Rao of Jaisalmar was a Rajput [forget the golden fort part for now], and this was the branch responsible for the Sidhu Jats). Since it does seem that Sitush is of a religious denomination that may have some conflict with the legitimate content that is supported by British sources, in no small part due to the history and evolution of British rule in India, I am asking if others can objectively contest whether the Imperial Gazetteer of India is unreliable.
It seems this is a good source used for many articles involving India, and provides us with some confidence that there is corroboration of claims from a non-ethnic source. Is this wrong? I note this source is also on wikisource. Surely the editor has erred? Also, it seems William Wilson Hunter (the visionary behind this compendium) isn't somebody whose life work we dismiss with blanket arguments like "Raj sources not reliable"? I have not seen anything from the opposition that provides strong counter claims to what is provided in the multitude of sources supporting the content he disputes.
Some articles I've found that this source is used in:
(etc)
It really does seem this is a good quality source that the opposition does not like due to the content, and not the source.
edit: Hello everyone. It seems User:Sitush and User:Bishonen are ignoring Wikipedia ettiquette, where item (3) on What is Wikisource? article clearly states wikisource provides wp:RS, thus refuting alleged bias claimed by these editors. Can we please get some action on this matter? It seems Bishonen was involved previously as well, and as an administrator he is ignoring the established criteria of Wikisource. I also find it very curious that Bishonen called following protocol 'disruptive editing'. I will be posting htis on the administrator's noticeboard as wel. Thank you.
But the British Government, established at Delhi since 1803,
intervened with an offer of protection to all the CIS-SUTLEJ STATES;
and Dhanna Singh gladly availed himself of the promised aid, being
one of the first chieftains to accept British protection and control. [2]
I felt that what was added yesterday only emphasised the correctness of the content originally removed by Sitush and Bishonen approximately three months ago. Thank you for your time— Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.76.118.151 ( talk) 16:36, January 22, 2017
References
References
About the time of the first Muhammadan invasions a colony of Bhatti Rajputs from Jaisalmer settled in the neighbourhood of Mukhtsar, and the Manj, a branch of them, ousted the Ponwars and became converts to Islam about 1288."Ferozepur District". The Imperial Gazetteer of India. Vol. 12. 1908. p. 90.
About the end of the sixteenth century the Sidhu Jats, from whom the Phulkian Rajas are descended, made their appearance; and in the middle of the seventeenth century most of the Jat tribes were converted to Sikhism by Har Rai, the seventh Guru.
{{
cite book}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help)
. Vol. 12. 1908.
The Siddhu story is that they are descended from the Bhatti Rajput prince Jaisal, the founder of Jaisalmer, and the families that claim this descent in the present day are in order of seniority Kaithal, Jhumba, Arnauli and Sadhowal, descended from Siddhu's eldest son Dhar, then Nabha and Jind descended from Tilokha, the eldest son of Phul the senior eponym in descent from Siddhu, and the branches of Jind, Badrukhan and Dialpura... This gives us seventeen leading families from this one stock alone. Fortunately the dates of the leading names in the tree up to Jaisal are well ascertained, for Jaisal himself died in 1168. A. D and was succeeded by his eldest son Salbahan (not the great Salbahan), while his second son Hemal (died in 1214), sought his fortunes, in the Punjab and founded the Siddhu tribe, through Siddhu the sixth in descent from him. From whom the ninth is Barar, at which point the Faridkot line breaks off calling themselves Barar, and then twelfth from Barar comes Phul (died in 1652) from who the great families all spring.
The ruling family are of the same stock as those of Patiala and Jind, being Sidhu Jat Sikhs, counting back to the illustrious Phul. The foundations of the house were laid by Hamir Singh, who joined his Sikh brethren in the capture of Sarhand about the middle of the last century, and obtained as his reward the pargana of Amloh.
Born in 1843; succeeded to the gadi 9th June 1871. Belongs to the great Sidhu Jat family, known as the Phulkian family, from its founder Phul; which has given ruling families to Patiala, Jind, Nabha, Bhadaur, and other Punjab states. The Raja of Nabha is descended from Tiloka, eldest son of Phul; whose great-grandson, Hamir Singh, founded the town of Nabha in 1755 A.D. He joined the Sikh Chiefs in the great battle of Sirhind, when Zain Khan, the Muhammadan Viceroy, was slain; and established a mint at Nabha, as a mark of independence.
This site seems to get used for two things. First, for news; it acts as an aggregate for articles published elsewhere, and since Deagel provides links to those it seems superfluous to use Deagel in this manner.
The second is for technical details for particular weapon systems; the site is like a mini-encyclopedia. However, like a lot of sites that do that, it doesn't show where it gets its information from.
I also have not been able to find much about the qualifications of the person(s) who run the site. http://www.whois.com/whois/deagel.com seems to suggest it's a one person operation (it's registered under "GAS DEAGEL".) My wariness is further increased by the country forecast for 2025; the view it takes seems very fringe.
Would this site be considered reliable/useful for Wikipedia purposes? - RovingPersonalityConstruct ( talk, contribs) 09:46, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
A source was recently added at the article spinal manipulation, it has been reverted for being an unreliable source. I am looking for the opinions of other editors.
The problem is not with ethnic origin, but with an academic/political "scientific" culture which does not test hypotheses. That problem occurs to some extent anywhere - would you trust a tobacco company on the dangers of smoking? - but seems to be pretty much universal in some nations, being even worse when matters of national pride are involved. The test for reliability therefore include the academic affiliations and bases of the authors and the journal, and the relevance of the subject matter to points of national pride. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 18:18, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
For future reference, if nothing else, it is possibly worth noting that multiple reliable sources relating to Qigong fever have attested to the fact that at least during the peak of that era the government of the PRC was actively promoting several forms of traditional Chinese medicine both as, in a sense, an "opiate of the masses" for those who could not afford the more expensive and less readily available, generally considered more reliable, Western forms of medicine, and as a way to promote the Chinese cultural heritage, and thus also promote a "collective mindset" among the Chinese people. So far as I know, the government of the PRC is still, at least to an extent, actively promoting such thinking, and, on that basis, any sources which might be seen as in any way promoting these Chinese traditional practices which lack much outside support but seem to be have in some way linkage to Chinese governmental policies and practices should be considered suspect. John Carter ( talk) 15:20, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
At History of Indigenous Australians, the website 'Australia: The Land Where Time Began / A Biography of the Australian Continent' (specifically http://austhrutime.com/malakunanja.htm) is used to source the statement:
The rock shelters at Malakunanja II (a shallow rock-shelter about 50 kilometres inland from the present coast) and of Nauwalabila I (70 kilometres further south) show evidence of used pieces of ochre – evidence for paint used by artists 60,000 years ago.
The wording is a bit of a mess, but I'm looking for comments specifically on the source. It looks a lot like a self-published more-or-less-blog to me, but wanted to get a second opinion. I don't think the content itself is particularly controversial. The source itself cites further sources, and it would probably be more appropriate to use them, but I don't have easy access to them and I'm guessing this is why someone used the web source in the first place. GoldenRing ( talk) 13:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Hi all,
Having trouble with some other editors about whether or not I'm allowed to use certain sources as references in my articles.
Sites:
A series of books were written by Bray, Vincent and Daryl M. Gregory over the period 2009-2014 listing most but not all of the details on Vincent's site; and Vincent also hosts a plethora of official Victorian Railways diagrams and detailed photographs not included in those books. Similarly, Bray's site has dated photos that can be used for locating individual vehicles; and Daryl Gregory has a limited presence on Facebook, identity confirmed within private groups like Victorian Railway Enthusiasts. The fact that the group(s) is/are closed isn't a problem according to WP:IRS's talk page:
Do sources have to be free, online and/or conveniently available to me? No. Sources can be expensive, print-only, or available only in certain places. A source does not stop being reliable simply because you personally aren't able to obtain a copy.
Additionally, the vast majority of people likely to read the relevant pages will already have (or will easily be able to get) access to the relevant forums.
To a lesser extent, these sites, which host personal photos but also content scanned directly from archives, i.e. diagrams.
These are for most/all of the articles listed in the VRLocos template, about half of which I've written and nearly all of which I've contributed to.
In both cases, this is based on the reliability of the individuals' posts and printed/published works (i.e. in the magazine Newsrail) over more than a decade.
How do I get these people individually approved as sources, and then how do I make them immune to future deletion by editors who don't see this thread? One solution might be to add an entry on the Template linking to a list of reliable sources applicable only to those articles? Anothersignalman ( talk) 15:15, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
Would the website Phactual be considered as an RS for reference to a US legal case? this Is the one more specifically. The C of E God Save the Queen! ( talk) 09:08, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned about using this anonymous group [15] as a source for anything. It's used in multiple articles [16] including BLPs such as Mansour Mohamed Abdul Fattah al-Moslah. Looking at GNews I see two uses of it. I can't see how it qualifies as a reliable source at all. Doug Weller talk 11:59, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I am currently involved in a dispute with another editor, which is (in part) about the RSness of The Independent newspaper, and in particular about this article's claim "In just one weekend, the website has posted false statistics about rising crime, when crime has actually gone down over the last eight years." which is misleading and wrong. http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/alternative-facts-white-house-website-donald-trump-fake-crimes-statistics-lgbt-climate-change-pages-a7540841.html. You are welcome to weigh in on our discussion, but I want to raise a more general point - can the Independent be considered a Reliable Source any more? Their standards have plummeted and they're basically a clickbait operation now, a shadow of the newspaper they used to be.
Evidence:
References
My understanding is that sources are not automatically rejected for simple facts just because they have some POV on a topic, and that secondary sources are preferable to primary sources. However @ Springee: and @ Niteshift36: seem to be arguing that if there's a consensus to leave criminal usage out of an article then none of the sources can mention the criminal usage either. If so, that would seriously skew the neutrality of an article because almost all articles in mainstream sources, both academic and journalistic, discuss this rifle in the context of its criminal use. In the process, they mention other facts about it, including its sales. Sales figures are a common thing to report for a commercial product. To reduce the quality of an article in order to enforce a POV policy on sources is misguided, in my opinion. Amy I wrong? What the right way to interpret WP:V, WP:NPOV, and WP:NOR in this case? Felsic2 ( talk) 02:12, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You avoided answering the question when I asked. Given you want to cite production numbers there should be no issues with citing them from the ATF (a more reliable source than your articles) vs an article that doesn't state where it's numbers came from and another that says it got the numbers from the ATF. We can cut out the middle man. It's insulting to others to claim your only intent is to provide production figures. Consider that a link to the ATF data would provide information for all years vs just a select few. Springee ( talk) 16:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
To me, we have the question "can 'hard facts' like production numbers be sourced to secondary sources that are clearly biased in tone?" There's a lot of issues at play, but to summarize this:
So using the BATFE's numbers directly should be fine, and we don't have to include the secondary sources. Now if we were talking about a non-essential figure, such as the number of crimes that a certain gun was used in, even if still sourceable by the BATFE, this is where the presence of secondary sources is required, to tell us that, as a transformative source, why that figure was important and to put it into perspective. And that's where if there's a source bias, that could be a problem to include, since many biased sources will play with statistics to get the point they want to prove. That's where the evaluation of the opinion using those statistics for inclusion under UNDUE/FRINGE may be necessary. If a gun is widely criticized as being too frequently used in crime, then we can use these sources to justify that. If these are the only two sources in the world that consider the gun being used too often, and no one else addresses that, then perhaps this is too FRINGE-y to include. -- MASEM ( t) 18:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
What's the rule on interpreting primary sources? WP:PRIMARY? Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. The BATFE [17] and Shooting Industry sources [18] don't mention the topic of the article, the M&P15. Instead, they report on all rifle sales by Smith & Wesson. So we'd have to take a different source, which says that S&W's only rifle for a span of years was the M&P15. Would that cause a problem with WP:SYNTH? It seems like it'd just be simpler to stick with the reliable secondary sources already in use. Felsic2 ( talk) 21:37, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Source:
Article:
Content:
In 1950, the temple was suspected to be set on fire by radical Christian extremists which destroyed the entire temple and had to be reconstructed.
Is there any merit in the aforementioned sources? I had a dispute with a editor who questions reliability of these sources. Advice ? Crawford88 ( talk) 07:18, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
User:Cohler has proposed that the Summary for Policymakers of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Fifth Assessment Report (IPCC AR5) is not a reliable source, because "it is a summary and therefore can lead to misinterpretations" as stated here (be aware User:Cohler signs as TheClarinetGuy). I do not see any indication in Wikipedia:Verifiability that summaries are inherently unreliable. Note also that in this case that the summary is written by a subset of the authors of the longer report. Am I perhaps missing something? Shock Brigade Harvester Boris ( talk) 18:44, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
I propose this thread be closed pursuant to WP:MULTI. At article talk Cohler is asserting all of these arguments, but has abandoned claims that the IPCC Summary for PolicyMakers does not qualify as a WP:Reliable sources. Instead, we're now rehashing arguments about how and if it should be used in terms of WEIGHT, etc. Since its no longer a question of reliability, we should consolidate the multiple venues into just a single venue.... at article talk. NewsAndEventsGuy ( talk) 18:42, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
The following shows how easy it has become to fake a YouTube video using an ordinary PC.
I can only assume that someone with a lot more money and a lot more time can do a much more realistic fake. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 08:20, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Is this reliable? http://vesselnews.io/shock-video-black-lives-matter-activist-says-need-start-killing-people
Benjamin ( talk) 03:32, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
You need to tell us what you want to use the source as a reference for (and in which article) if you hope to get a useful response. The source looks to be very poor quality though. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:33, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
No, not for that video's content - or for opinions about its content. An non-RS source commenting on an unnamed individual with unspecified connections to BLM (beyond being at their rally) voicing their personal extremist opinions makes for nothing usable for Wikipedia content. Of course, based on the way Wikipedia seems to be working these days, if it were the other way around - an unnamed individual with unspecified connections to Trump (beyond being at a supporters rally) voicing their personal extremist opinions - then it would be considered a verbatim repeating of Donald Trump's policy position and the position of everyone who voted for him! Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 17:20, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
The source is an article from Rai 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 article is a GA nominee so I need an answer for the source's appropriateness. Chris Troutman ( talk) 04:27, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
"... reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective."Moreover, the mentioned part is well attributed to the source for maintaining the overall NPOV. -- Mhhossein talk 22:01, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
On the BLP article for Jessica Yellin, this edit introduced the following content about her personal life:
Yellin keeps a low profile and keeps her personal life unknown.
The content is sourced to http://frostsnow.com/jessica-yellin.
Is FrostSnow.com a reliable source for this BLP content?
Thank you! SueDonem ( talk) 21:00, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
Why Progressives Are Wrong to Argue Against Cultural Appropriation http://observer.com/2015/11/why-progressives-are-wrong-to-argue-against-cultural-appropriation/ Is this a reliable source? Benjamin ( talk) 08:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Are books that publish creationist theory automatically not RS (As seems to be being cleaimed here [30] and specifically in relation to this source [31] and it's claim that someone is a scientist? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:30, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Now to add, as this is getting all rather nasty over at the talk page, is this RS for the claim he is a scientist? [32]. Slatersteven ( talk) 15:52, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
Source: [33]
Article: American Legislative Exchange Council or to be within a new article
Content:
At ALEC’s 2016 annual meeting in July, the Convention of States was made a top priority. ALEC has adopted model rules for an Article V convention and gave its members model language for a resolution to call for a convention. The “ State Legislators Article V Caucus” of the Balanced Budget Amendment Task Force (BBATF) is dominated by ALEC legislators, and pro-convention advocacy groups including BBATF and Convention of States are part of ALEC.
I had a dispute with 2 editors who question the reliability of the source, In These Times, as a longstanding socialist magazine. Help please.
Calexit (
talk) 18:11, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
This is the source I'm talking about -- http://www.biblearchaeology.org/file.axd?file=The+Search+for+Joshuas+Ai.pdf --- it's a paper that was published to the journal of Critical Issues in Early Israelite History, a peer-reviewed journal. It has been cited multiple times in scholarly material, such as the 2014 book 'The Authors of the Deuteronomic History' by Brian Neil Peterson, page 94. It is also cited in the scholarly work 'The Israelite conquest : history or myth? : an achaeological evaluation of the Israelite conquest during the periods of Joshua and the Judges' -- in page 159. It is cited in this paper --- http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/0334435515Z.00000000044. These are a few examples to show it has been cited a number of times in many scholarly works -- all the sources that cite it can be found here in Google Scholar https://scholar.google.ca/scholar?cites=13627279837402623804&as_sdt=2005&sciodt=0,5&hl=en --- the author of the paper in question is Bryant Wood who has a PhD in Syro-Palestinian Archaeology and was the excavation director for the ancient site Khirbet el-Maqatir, which is a site that is part of the main discussion in the source that I'm asking evaluation for. In other words, the author of the paper is a PhD in the field, the paper is peer-reviewed and published into a respected archaeological and academic journal, and it has been cited many times in scholarly material. I think this easily qualifies WP:IRS. Any thoughts on agreeing or disagreeing? Korvex ( talk) 04:16, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
Some corrections:
(1) Critical Issues in Early Israelite History is not a journal at all. It was published as a supplement of the Bulletin for Biblical Research, a publication of the Institute for Biblical Research, which "offer[s] to evangelical biblical scholars and Ph.D. students a venue for creative, reflective and serious biblical scholarship". I.e., it publishes articles by people who pass the right ideological test. The volume is the outcome of a weekend conference and I can't find any evidence of peer review.
(2) The paper
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1179/0334435515Z.00000000044 by a famous Israeli archaeologist definitely does not cite it, regardless of what Google scholar says. In fact it doesn't cite any of the 12 authors of Critical Issues for any their work.
(3) "The Israelite conquest : history or myth?" which Korvex strangely does not provide a URL for, is a
Masters thesis, so not even citable itself.
(4) Assistant professor of Old Testament Brian Neil Peterson works with the Associates for Biblical Research (Bryant Wood's outfit), so he is hardly a supportive example.
Altogether the case for this source is very weak.
Zero
talk 07:07, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
References
There is an ongoing RFC which may be of interest to the participants of this board.
/info/en/?search=Talk:Emmett_Till#Emmett_Till_lead_sentence_RFC ResultingConstant ( talk) 17:36, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
This talk section was set up on the Religiosity and intelligence article to discuss my removal of this material given a source of "The myth of the smarter atheist. This source is a self published opinion piece, and violates WP:RS, and makes an extraordinary claim, as a lone source, so does not make the exceptions listed under WP:SELFSOURCE. Ramos1990 ( talk · contribs) is insisting it is a quality source, however it is clearly not. The article is balanced, as it includes ACTUAL published counterarguments-not self published opinion pieces. The fact that it is a self published opinion, contradicts the WP:SCIRS statement that "Most books and monographs that are self-published or published by vanity presses undergo no independent fact-checking or peer review and consequently are not reliable sources."
The text is as follows
The Lynn et al. study has been criticized by Artificial Intelligence researcher Randy Olson who has noted that the correlation between wealth and intelligence is stronger and more suited to explain the differences in IQ because countries with lower IQ scores are less developed and countries with high IQ scores are highly developed. Furthermore, he notes countries with 20% atheists or more, which also happen to be highly developed countries, actually flatline at 100 IQ on average rather than increase in IQ. Furthermore, more atheists in a population do not equate to increases in IQ since countries with populations that have virtually 0% atheists have scored more than 100 IQ. [1]
and
When looking at Kanazawa's paper on individual religiosity, or atheism, and intelligence, Olson noted that both the most religious people and atheists were all within the bounds of "average intelligence" (90–109) and from a practical point, the level of intelligence is indistinguishable from the other since they both scored very close to each other. [1]
Petergstrom (
talk) 18:40, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
Note that while self published source by an established expert may be used, it is nevertheless never an optimal source and peer reviewed source are to be preferred. In addition the more contentious or problematic a topic gets the better the sources should be. Based on that even if you see Olson here as an expert, his self published sources should not be used here due to the contentious nature of the subject. Instead only reputable peer reviewed sources by him or others should be used.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:07, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. Appreciate your collective inputs. Most editors here see value in Dr. Olson's observations which are not extraordinary (even the paper Olson critiques noted better correlations between national IQs and education), but as others have mentioned that though the source can be used with caution (per WP policy), a source with some degree of oversight is preferable due to the controversial nature of the topic. Hope this helps. Huitzilopochtli1990 ( talk) 02:44, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
References
Source:
http://www.historyofjihad.org/philippines.html
Article:
Ma-i, any other references to Philippine protohistory (between 900 and 1521 AD)
Content: "Before they reached the shores of Luzon, they subjugated the Buddhist Huangdom of Mai and that lead to its decline.The Buddhist culture of Mindoro gradually disappeared after Bolkiah forced the citizens of Mai to converted their faith to Islam. They forcibly converted and conquered people up to the fall of the Kingdom of Tondo."
Query: Requesting community consensus on the reliability of historyofjihad.org as a source. In this case, I think the text is actually a violation of WP:SYNTH, and I may take action to remove it on that basis soon. However, I want to know if there's anything in the source that is salvagable for the article. Before I do that, I'd like to ask if the community thinks the page is a reliable source? I'm not convinced it is, so I'm requesting feedback. Thanks! - Alternativity ( talk) 08:55, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
The site doesn't look scholarly at all and frankly seems a bit agenda driven, so it does not qualify as a reliable source.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)
Template:LGBT rights table Europe
The source is cited 21 times, apparently mostly for the claim that sterilization is required in some countried before legal recognition of gender change. The source also says that numerous countries (Ireland, Lithuania, etc.) do not allow legal gender change. Our ... article (template?) lists a number of these countries as legally allowing gender change.
I know there is a lot of nuance in these cases, but it seems like if our article is going to declare a source to be wrong on some points (by saying that country X allows gender change), we shouldn't be assuming it is right on others (the places it is currently cited).
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:50, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
Is mlbtraderumors.com a reliable source on the Kris Bryant BLP? Is the use of that source, if reliable, something to be quoted exactly in the BLP? I first thought it was a simple copyvio, but then reflected that the source did not sound really major. Collect ( talk) 22:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm having a small disagreement with @ Dan56: about the use of Acclaimed Music in the article Call the Doctor. In my opinion, Acclaimed Music is a tertiary source and therefore cannot be used to cite individual review scores. Instead, secondary sources should be used. Dan56 disagrees and thinks the source can be used to cite scores otherwise not easily accessible. I should also note that Acclaimed Music is not listed in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources. More feedback would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. -- Niwi3 ( talk) 20:34, 6 February 2017 (UTC)
"Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications."
On the matter of scores and ratings, Henrik Franzon would appear reliable.
Dan56 (
talk) 14:54, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Hello everyone. I was wondering if I could use the following source for the Liz Sanbourne page: 1? I would be using it for the "Critical reception" subsection as the website talks about how Marshall breaks the traditional look for women on soap operas. However, I am assuming that this site would not be usable on Wikipedia, but I just wanted to double-check to make sure. Thank you in advance and I apologize if this is obvious. Aoba47 ( talk) 19:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)