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 219 | Archive 220 | Archive 221 | Archive 222 | Archive 223 | → | Archive 225 |
The mainstream view on the term "Kurd" is that was originally the designation of Iranian nomadic tribes, and that the Persian name was adapted into Arabic as "kurd-". One user is marginalizing the mainstream view (claiming it is the view of "some others", and moving the mainstream view to the end of the section), and pushing fringe theories most likely taken from ultra-nationalist websites.
His sources for the fringe view is a British empire era scholar from the 1920s ("Driver, G. R. "The Name Kurd and Its Philological Connexions") and a fringe nationalist writer ("Mirawdali, Kemal. KURDISTAN & KURDS. The Kurdish Information Centre. p. 11.").
Are these sources really strong enough to use them in the beginning of the section, or even use them at all in the article?
The same fringe theory is pushed in the article Origin of the Kurds and Kurds by the same user, and the mainstream view is also marginalized in these articles.
As seen on other pages (for example [1]), the user seems to be part of a group of meatpuppets who are pushing anti-christian [2] [3] anti-turkish [4] [5] [6] [7], anti-muslim [8], , anti-iranian [9] , anti-woman [10] [11] and ultra-nationalist [12] edits in all kind of articles.
Sigh...The anon from "France"(!) is Turkish nationalist sockmaster Lrednuas Senoroc with an another "proxy"-stalking the same Kurdish nationalist editor Ferakp again. I'll add that proxy sock to SPI. 46.221.181.198 ( talk) 00:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This board can only comment on the sources. The Kurdish Information Centre is an advocacy group and in no way reliable for etymology. Driver was a distinguished scholar but his work is completely out of date now, so I would not support including anything based solely on him. Pre-1945 history is often nationalistic, or is spun for nationalistic ends. Concerns about meat-puppetry need to be discussed elsewhere. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
“The Kurdish Information Centre” source was already reverted 13 days ago per WP:RS, but for some reason, the IP mentioned it here. That is to say, we are discussing the reliability of an inexistent source now. As for Godfrey Rolles Driver, the source was published on 1923 and seems outdated. Plus, as far as I can see, user Ferakp was warned by @ Doug Weller: on his talk page regarding reliability of the same source on 30 January. However, despite the warning, he added the same source on an another article on 31 January 1. 46.221.187.227 ( talk) 13:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on the Tiger_Forces, a special forces unit in the Syrian Arab Army relies only on blog articles from
The article is found here Tiger_Forces
Long passages such as
After successful operations in Latakia and Hama, Colonel Suheil al-Hassan was tasked a special project by the Syrian Armed Forces Central Command in the fall of 2013—to train and lead a Special Forces unit that would work primarily as an offensive unit. Colonel Hassan handpicked many of the soldiers that would later form the Tiger Forces.
are cited to one blog article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/colonel-suheil-al-hassan-tiger-forces/ that is unverifiable and unsupported.
The author of these articles is Leith Fadel, who has a strong bias in favor of Bahar Al-Assad and the forces supporting him. Al Masdar news is a blog written by Leith Fadel and articles do not provide any type of verification. These articles do not provide verification and cannot be considered either reliable or verifiable. Furthermore, Leith Fadel has a history of making unverifiable claims, some of which have caused harm to other individuals. Evidence of this is found in this article:
Example
Mr. Fadel, whose Facebook profile photograph shows him with the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, tempered his criticism of Mr. Mohsen on Wednesday, saying, “Whether he is a former fighter or not, I cannot confirm — but I am happy his son is safe.” Still, the pro-government journalist’s Facebook post appears to have helped spread the rumor that Mr. Mohsen was either a supporter or a member of Nusra far and wide.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.3.79 ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, maybe it is time we did just ban all newspapers (and indeed any TV news programs/channels) that have a reputation for making stuff up and telling out right lies.
(Soapbox alert)
The standards and integrity of modern journalism has (I think) reached an all time low, much lower then when Wikipedia was first established (and even then it looked upon the press through rose tinted glasses).
As such I think we actually need to either have a blanket change of policy on RS (not new organisations unless it can be shown they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking) or widen the "daily Mail rule to include other (currently) RS. I prefer the latter, and as such.
I can see a reason for this given that even some major news outlets (such as CNN and Fox) do seem to just repeat any damn lie. But it may not be practicable. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
11:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Express. It tries to copy the Daily Mail but does not have the staff or ability to do it properly (not that the DM is a role model) (this is a shame given it's once great reputation). Slatersteven ( talk) 10:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a shortcut to that section à la the existing WP:DAILYMAIL link, something like WP:DAILYEXPRESS? Daniel Case ( talk) 17:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If we are going to compile a list, we need to include the ones that everyone agrees are unreliable such as The Onion.
Let me do a quick check...
I didn't get a warning from an edit filter. It seems wrong to get a warning when using The Daily Mail as a source but not when using The Onion as a source. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Banning The Onion seems a bit ridiculous to me and a sign that the discussion is derailing. Since The Onion is satire site it is obviously not a news source and we should start arbitrary things because they aren't news sources. Otherwise we're starting to ban literature and comedians and who knows what else. Also note there are other reason than news to cite a source, which will be affected by the filter as well. A link to The Onion is certainly needed in an article on The Onion itsself. There might be articles on comedy or satire topics and authors were citing The Onion might be appropiate.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Since this seems to be a wish list, I nominate Forbes.com. While never great, the website now seems to be borderline WP:ELNO#EL3 bad. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Before this recent Daily Mail thing? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not that I am aware, but maybe we should start. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up and someone asked so I thought I would link to at least one very early discussion about the Huffington Post in regards to whether or not it was considered a reliable source. By 2008 discussion of it was already something that came up often.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 04:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC).
In response to the close of the Daily Mail RFC I have been "encouraged to review" our article on St Paul's Survives to "remove/replace [citations to the Daily Mail] as appropriate". I think it would be helpful to sound out what is appropriate in this case. The DM sourcing seems to be: (1) to attribute the photograph discussed which is hosted at File:Stpaulsblitz.jpg with a non-free use claim. (2) A statement by Herbert Mason, the photographer, in DM. (3) An article by Max Hastings sourced to dailymail.co.uk in 2010. [19] What removal or replacement is required? An alternative source of reference might be Blitz on Britain although that is authored by "Daily Mail" but published by Transatlantic Press, ISBN 978-1907176715. [20] Is this publisher a reliable source and, given the authorship, this book itself? Thincat ( talk) 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Original poster here. Since this particular topic has now gone quiet and no changes have been made to the article or the corresponding file, I'll say what my take is on this. No one has suggested that any of the references to the Daily Mail should be removed or replaced and some people have suggested that some references should not be removed. It seems in at least one case the person is replying in a way they consider is indicated by the close of the RFC rather than their personal opinion. Thank you everyone very much. If there are further comments I shall still be keeping an eye open here. Thincat ( talk) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure if this is the correct page to be posting this, however, I urge people to google the words "wikipedia daily mail ban" (without the quotes). The media are clearly interpreting this as a ban, no matter how nuanced the closing remarks and comments at the RfC were. DrChrissy (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, "ban" is a 3-letter word. Newspapers love short words, even if they might not capture all the nuance.
The Daily Mail is claiming this was politically motivated. See the last three paragraphs in the latest update of the Guardian piece. [21]
“All those people who believe in freedom of expression should be profoundly concerned at this cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press.”
-- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello all. I have just noticed some edits to Snugburys that reference this Daily Mail article. On a search I can't find any other sources that make particular reference to the things which are sourced to the DM articles (and nor can User:Mike Peel). Equally, applying normal editorial judgement there appears to be no reason to doubt the Daily Mail's article: it is consistent with a number of other sources, and giant straw scupltures is not known as an area in which the Mail is prone to exaggeration, fabrication, or bias. How should one approach this issue in the light of the Daily Mail RfC? Regards, The Land ( talk) 22:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC going on at the article concerning Tomas Gorny. Some individuals (whom I suspect are possibly paid to oppose the inclusion of an article published on Forbes) are opposing the inclusion of this article, potentially in order to WP:GAME the system. I suspect this because one editor is a newly created SPA account and another editor who has not edited in a while both voted to delete the source. Now, the Forbes article is written by a Forbes staff writer, Susan Adams, who has received notable accolades for her work there. Your non-partisan commentary at the RfC discussion would be duly appreciated. Happy Valentine's Day (or Singles Awareness Day, whichever you prefer), Eliko007 ( talk) 20:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This Google Map is being used at the article NoMad, Manhattan to support the claim that the neighborhood's northern boundary is 30th Street, while a clearly reliable source from The New York Times cites 29th Street. In this edit, Beyond My Ken (who I hope will comment here), has used both sources and stated that different northern boundaries are cited.
While I think that this edit is balanced and appropriate, the basic question is the underlying reliability of Google Maps as an arbiter of the boundaries, as I have no idea where Google has gotten its information. Alansohn ( talk) 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
True, we seem to have become a little too focused on this particular issue, and have sidelined your original question. I would say that Google maps is generally a reliable source, but where it conflicts with another more conventional reliable source, we should go with the other one (as they are likely an aggregator, much like Wikipedia). Moreover, most of the time the information contained in google maps would be found in other more reliable sources, such as government maps or archived data. I would be very much in opposition to saying that google maps is in general an 'unreliable' source, particularly because sometimes they are cited for material which is original and not found elsewhere (I have seen street view images which randomly found something notable become highly cited primary sources, though I can't remember where). So in short, yes, I would consider it generally reliable. But when other reliable sources exist that conflict with it, I would assume that Google maps made a mistake, and cite the other source instead. That being said, even in this case, it doesn't appear that they have made a mistake, their definition seems to be more or less an average of other popular definitions and identical to another one cited in the NYT, which adds credibility to the accuracy of Google maps. Someguy1221 however, makes a good point that google maps can change without notice and does't track changes, which is an issue, and another reason that in cases of conflict i would trust other sources more highly. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I know this is hyper partisan, but is it otherwise reliable?
Benjamin ( talk) 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm poking this noticeboard, since it seems far more active than WP:NPOVN noticeboard. After a few days of waiting for a third opinion there, I've given up. A recent article led to a bit of back and forth at Donald Trump-Russia dossier, and I've had a bit of an unusual interaction with the locals there regarding the use and misuse of the Paul Gregory Forbes.com piece. This is not strictly a reliable sources question, although my understanding is that Forbes.com in general is not regarded as an acceptable source. I believe that it is a reliable source in the present context, which is for the opinion of its author, but the question remains what WP:WEIGHT to assign that opinion. Please opine at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Forbes / Paul Gregory, if you are so inclined. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me how we got to the point where the Daily Mail article covers Wikipedia's "banning" with a Huffington Post? I see something severely wrong if we put ourselves in a position where we reject a printed source but enable blogging-style sources like Huffington Post. Nergaal ( talk) 23:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't looked in detail but maybe these cases are worth studying:
Nergaal ( talk) 15:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
However, I would agree that their listicle-type material is not something we should use. Daniel Case ( talk) 00:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, convince me. Start with this story: [27] Find the place in the Huffington Post that the story refers to and post the URL. Is it presented as material from the Huffington Post (you know, the way the Daily Mail has done repeaedly) or is it a "Buzzfeed said" article? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
+Thanksgiving +plane site:huffingtonpost.com
and got the following result:A new user recently added a citation [28] to Logan Browning from a "news" source called Article Bio. Deeply concerning is the 404-error located at the privacy policy and homepage parts of this site. No "About" section can be found leading me to believe it should not be a reliable source.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
http://baltimore-art.com/2017/02/11/the-aesthetics-of-the-alt-right/
Is this a reliable source?
Benjamin ( talk) 22:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice in the Bankstown Central Shopping Centre article , someone has used this http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/humanity/2007/mbailey3.html to justify the statement the Centre remains an important part of the civic life of this region of Sydney. firstly the source doesn't say it, and this is just a symposium paper. LibStar ( talk) 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
As the source says, "Basirat news and analysis website is an Iranian think tank based in Tehran aims to ‘scientifically and methodologically’ explore the international political developments and significant news stories, owend by IRGC political department."
My question is if we can use materials by this source in Middle eastern and political related topics? Specifically, how can this interview be used in those mentioned articles? Thanks -- Mhhossein talk 13:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can anyone provide examples of where using Daily Mail articles has resulted in inaccurate information being presented in Wikipedia articles? TFD ( talk) 18:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:DEADHORSE. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
A closer of any discussion must be disinterested and uninvolved. Alas, the closer here has made specific and numerous posts here on this topic. Closing commented out as a result. Collect ( talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Source: Judah, Tim (2008).
Bikila: Ethiopia's Barefoot Olympian. London: Reportage Press. p. 23.
ISBN
978-0-955830211.
OCLC
310218562. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Article: Abebe Bikila
Content: In 1969, on the night of March 22, Abebe was driving his Volkswagen Beetle when he lost control and the vehicle overturned with him trapped inside. [1] According to Judah, it is possible he may have been drinking. [2] [3] However, Judah also quotes Abebe's own accounts of that night which contradict this and admits that it is difficult to know for certain what happened that night. [3]
References
Is this appropriate? Should I include this? Relevant quotes in Judah (2008):
On his way back he was spotted in Debre Berhan, in a bar, at 9:00 pm.
Wami Biratu and Hailu Abebe both dismiss the notion that there was anything suspicious about the accident. Maybe the account in Tsige's book is completely accurate, [or] maybe he had too much to drink. We shall never know...
Wami Biratu and Hailu Abebe (no relation) were friends of his and with him earlier that night. Tsige Abebe is Abebe Bikila's daughter who also wrote a biography on Bikila in 1996 which contains Bikila's account of that night. Tim Judah quotes her extensively in his biography. Judah never states who spotted him in a bar. And in the same paragraph he continues:
...maybe he had too much to drink. We shall never know. Nevertheless, rumours spread like wildfire. The gist of them was that an attempt had been made on the life of Bikila by a wronged and jealous husband. There were also stories that the car crash was a cover up and that Bikila had in fact been shot. Needless to say, there is no proof of any of this, but the fact that these stories were widely believed says something about Bikila's reputation.
Sorry if the patronymics make it difficult. I just wanted an opinion on this. Take a look at the guardian article too.—አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 06:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
At Social media, one or more unregistered editors are insisting that this article is a reliable source for the fairly mundane claim that "text was indicated as the most important reason among Internet users." I challenge the reliability of this source and any other source published by David Publishing. The briefest of searches turns up numerous reports and warnings (e.g., this post] from Leiter Reports, this post on an academic's personal blog, this post on another academic's personal blog) from academics, including librarians (e.g., this post from Syracuse, this post on the personal blog of another academic librarian]) who are experts in this area, that this is a predatory publisher. It was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers; here is an archive of that list and here is a specific tweet from Beall about this publisher.
Given the overwhelming evidence that this publisher is predatory and a scammer, nothing it has published can possibly be considered reliable and should be cited in Wikipedia articles. ElKevbo ( talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't exactly about reliability, but y'all know the MOS, perhaps. Please look at at this edit--this is the first time I hear that the location is somehow important in citing an article from a magazine: there are no different Car and Drivers or Auto Expresses for different countries, as far as I know. Pinging Stepho-wrs. Drmies ( talk) 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits were made to the Tsamiko and Osman Taka articles which are about Greek and Albanian dances of the wider Epirus region. Editors at the talkpages [32], [33] have expressed concerns the sources don't meet the set Wikipedia standards. Various sources like Youtube and other web sources were used to question references. The first source is by Eno Koço (2015), A Journey of the Vocal Iso(n) [34], Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Editors have referred to his works as "he recycles the typical ultranationalistic Albanian pov" [35] regarding page 4, 78. For me however, i only based my sentences on pages 14-16 which were relevant to the two articles. In those Koço also cities chunks of a Greek scholar Chiani's work. I ask because Koço is a Professor [36] at the University of Leeds in Britain and his book was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing [37], meeting i thought the requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. The other source is a chapter by Dr. Eckehard Pistrick [38] (from the Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg) "Whose is the song? Fieldwork views on multipart singing as expression of identities at South Albanian border" [39], contained in an edited book Balkan border crossings: First annual of the Konitsa Summer School compiled by Vassilis Nitsiakos [40] and published by Lit Verlag. Editors have said on the talkpage that the source does not meet the requirements while on my part i thought the source meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Advice on the sources would be most appreciated and welcomed by editors. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 21:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recently made a substantive change to an article which was reverted. I was annoyed at this because the editor gave no reason for the reversion while I had quoted a Wikipedia article in support of my change, feeling as there could be no more impeccable source that Wikipedia itself while editing on Wikipedia. Therefore, I reverted his reversion. He then provided a reason which I accepted in astonishment, so no conflict. However, this brings up a broader point. He linked to; WP:NOTSOURCE. It reads in part:
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time may not be accurate and may indeed be vandalism."
My reaction to this was:
“Whoever wrote this rule should consider advertising as a career. ‘Buy my product. It is entirely unreliable.’ As the unrepentant Scrooge noted: 'I shall retire to Bedlam.'"
For the benefit of those of us who might not be as well versed in Wiki history and rule making, could someone seek to explain and justify this seemingly bizarre rule? First off, I remember hearing of a study stating that Wiki is as accurate as other encyclopedias, including print ones. I have personally noted errors in past editions of print encyclopedias. So why should they be accepted as more legitimate than Wiki? Secondly, if someone were to use another Wiki article as a source for an article and there is an error within the source article, that can be challenged on both articles like any other source. If anything, Wiki has the formidable advantage over print encyclopedias in that errors can be rapidly corrected when noted and agreed upon whereas a print encyclopedia would have to wait until the next edition. It is demeaning to all the people who have put their time and research on a volunteer basis into many superlative Wiki articles to in effect be called unworthy to be used as a source and makes a farce out the entire momentous effort that is Wikipedia! if Wiki editors have such a low opinion of ourselves, then why should we expect anyone else to feel otherwise?
Does anyone here agree with me, and, if so, how do we try to get this ridiculous rule expunged from the Wiki canon? Who has the power to do this and how do we present our case?
Thank you. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Noticing how the B'Tselem's website differentiates between casualties among Israeli security forces and Israeli civilians, but doesn't offers a parallel classification of Palestinian casualties, I was inclined to look closer at their statistical data. I examined the downloadable .csv file listing 3,031 deaths since January 2009 in the West Bank and Gaza, and did find a relevant rubric titled Took part in the hostilities. However, since October 2014, 217 of 250 casualties' participation in hostilities has been deemed Irrelevant (23 listed as No, 10 as Yes). Here are a few questionable examples from last year's casualties, accompanied by the description offered by B'Tselem in the same file:
I call into question the reliability of their statistics on non-combatant casualties.-- ארינמל ( talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
|
I wasn't sure if this should go here, ELN or CP, and basically decided on RSN because I'm more familiar with this venue. Basically, individual romanizations for each character in the text are WP:BLUE so I could include them inline without a source, but I didn't want to look them up individually and copy-pasted them from some random blog (I checked several of them in a reliable source and the random blog, Poetry Nook, seems to be accurate), and I inserted a citation of said blog. It's my understanding that for BLUE material, no citation and a citation of a generally unreliable source are equally acceptable (or in other words, the generally unreliable source is adequate for extremely uncontentious information), but...
I worry that several other pages on Poetry Nook (not the one linked) might violate copyrights and so would fall under WP:ELNEVER. Specifically, I found unattributed translations of works of the same poet. I have no reliable way of knowing one way or the other whether the translations were stolen from someone, the unnamed contributors who uploaded them were the original translators/copyrightholders, or Poetry Nook's short quotations would fall under fair use and so us linking them would not be us linking a COPYVIO page.
Should I:
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Dispute over any use of this Novak source at all in Napoleon Hill.
The journalist Matt Novak writes that Hill married his second wife Edith Whitman in 1903, and that Hill's first child, Edith Whitman Hill, was born in 1905. Whitman's existence is not mentioned in Hill's official biography, but is corroborated by contemporary news accounts. [1] Hill and Whitman divorced in 1908.[43]
Hill made largely unverifiable claims to have personally met several prominent figures of his time, such as industrialist Andrew Carnegie and US Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt; however, according to at least one modern source, there exists little evidence that Hill had actually ever encountered any of these celebrities, with the exception of Thomas Edison.
Hill said he personally met several prominent figures of his time, such as industrialist Andrew Carnegie and US Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
After becoming estranged from Whitman, Hill moved to Mobile, Alabama in 1907 and co-founded the Acree-Hill Lumber Company. Novak accuses Hill of running this company as a fraudulent scheme; between 1907 and 1908, Hill took between $10,000 and $20,000 worth of lumber on credit, and then sold off the lumber at low prices without intending to repay his creditors. By September 1908, the Pensacola Journal reported that Hill was on the run, as he faced criminal proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings, charges of mail fraud, and warrants for his arrest. [2] [3]
By December 1908, Hill had fled to Washington, D.C., seeking to reinvent himself. At this point, Hill started introducing himself by his middle name, Napoleon.
Later in his life, Hill would claim that he spent the years of 1917-1918 advising president Woodrow Wilson amidst World War I. However, the journalist Matt Novak denies that Hill ever met Wilson, noting that Hill's publishings at the time omit any reference to such an occurrence. [2]
In 1935, Hill's wife Florence filed for a divorce in Florida. In 1936, the 53-year-old Hill entered his fourth marriage with the 29-year-old Rosa Lee Beeland, less than 2 days after the two met at a lecture in Knoxville, Tennessee. [2]
By early 1939, Novak claims that the "Hills were yet again nearly broke." [2]
The majority of all talk page discussion is over the use of this source. So, is it reliable for any of this content, alone or when supported by the newspapers cited? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: Your diffs are useless as they do not show editors removing the material and you and OMG reverting them. What's the point of posting them if we cannot see where editors are disputing the material based on questioned sources and you and OMG reverting them without justifying those sources. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The material on Mr. Hill appears to be of an editorial nature ("Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time" appears to be specifically an article about "scammer" rather than a simple biography of a specific person - who was not apparently convicted of anything, as far as I can tell). , rather than a scholarly article about the person, and the "naughty bits" appear not to be supported by other sources about the person. The author is not an expert in the field, and thus I have sincere doubts about it being a "reliable source" for contentious claims. As a result, the desire is to obtain better sources for such material. Collect ( talk) 00:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
While we are here, the biography also includes cites for the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography which appears to use biographical information without citations and, in its Wikipedia article, is noted as "The entries in the National Cyclopaedia are unsigned and are largely based upon questionnaires and other information supplied by families of the biographees." A Google News Archive search which is a 404. Also several sources are used repeatedly as though they were separate sources. Biographies which include "The organization was headed by the check forger and former convict Butler Storke, who was sent back to prison in 1923." appear problematic on their face - sourced to [49] used for ten "separate cites." In short, alas, a bit of a mess for a Wikipedia article. I had sought to clean it up a bit, but was insta-reverted. Collect ( talk) 14:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Note also that "Oliver N. Hill" is not a unique name. [50] shows one born in MI living in NM in 1940. Unless a newspaper gives stronger linkage to a specific person, the claim is not usable. Collect ( talk) 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll just briefly reiterate my points from the talk page, and say that I think the concerns over the Paleofuture "blog" are a bit overblown. Paleofuture may call itself a "blog" on Gizmodo, but it's not self-published livejournal or anything. From a structural point of view, it's just a normal part of Gizmodo, a news website. Per http://gizmodo.com/about Gizmodo has an editor-in-chief, several editors, etc., as one would expect from a news organization. And Matt Novak isn't just some random guy-- he's a reasonably well-known journalist, and a "senior writer" on Gizmodo who is presumably subject to editorial oversight. And frankly, when it comes down to it, I trust Novak's work more than that of Hill's promoters, who seem to be the writers of most other secondary sources on the man. OmgItsTheSmartGuy ( talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The content of Matt Novak's blog post is the issue here. The question is whether or not it is reliable. You say Gizmodo is used widely on Wikipedia, but in what context? What content from Gizmodo is being used? This blog is being used to source a biography, and whether or not Gizmodo has been used as a source on Wikipedia in general, it is this particular blog post that is in question here. With its sophomoric sarcasm, it does not represent a reliable telling of the life of Napoleon Hill. Matt Novak has no expertise on the subject. He's not a biographer or a historian, and that would be okay if what he wrote was a serious piece of journalism, but it is not. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Andrewa and MrOllie: It's the content of the blog that is at issue. Even if this were in the New York Times, it is opinion, and generally we don't use opinion. So the credibility of the website/source does not give cover to what is essentially a sarcastic, unsourced attack piece. The WP:RS is specific the biographies of living or dead persons must be well sourced. This is clearly not an acceptable source, especially when other reliable sources exist. I also agree that it is poor practice to insert Matt Novak's name into edits. One other thing to note is that the reliable sources on Hill have been labeled 'Hill promoters" by OmgitsTheSmartGuy. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
(The comments below were started
[51] in response to SW3 5DL's
[52], Your diffs are useless as they do not show editors removing the material and you and OMG reverting them. What's the point of posting them if we cannot see where editors are disputing the material based on questioned sources and you and OMG reverting them without justifying those sources.
--
Ronz (
talk) 21:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC))
@ Ronz: please don't move my edits. This particular edit was made on February 18th and I've restored it. Also please do not rewrite your edits after editors have responded to you. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: You need to stop this disruption of the discussion thread. As Andrewa notes, you can be blocked for this behavior. And refactoring my comment by adding talk quote and moving it again, is deliberate disruption. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest we just hat the mess above, right back to the first disputed contribution (whatever that is), and start again. I'm happy to do it if someone will identify the earliest problem for me. Andrewa ( talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Novak
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I noticed a new user adding lots of external links to journeymart.com. I thought at first this might just be spamming, but I see that the site is actually used as a reference in dozens of articles, suggesting that other editors have found it to be a useful source of information. It's a travel portal with some commercial offerings, but I can't really tell if the content at the site is reliable or not, so I'm asking for others' opinions. Deli nk ( talk) 12:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've seen a few entries here where Mondoweiss is concerned but nothing really definitive. It is my assertion that it can't be used as a RS especially for items within the Middle East conflict. It is not a neutral, reliable source. It has an agenda and it is pretty open about that agenda. The same way users throw out right wing entries merely for being right wing, or pro-Israeli, such as Arutz Sheva, Mondoweiss should not be allowed as a RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Over at Israel on Campus Coalition, there were some recent edits which read like PR. [62] So I tried Google news search to see if something better could be found. The top three search results in Google news search [63] are Algemeiner (Jewish), Breitbart News ( alt-right), and Mondoweiss ("progressive and anti-Zionist"). There's nothing on the first page of search results which can be considered a neutral reliable source. This is discouraging. John Nagle ( talk) 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
-site:breitbart.com -site:abcnews.com.co -site:nationalreport.net -site:infowars.com -site:wnd.com -site:naturalnews.com
site:
qualifiers in a search always fails for me, yet using multiple negative qualifiers as in your example seems to be OK. Do you know if there's a way to get something like site:bbc.com site:nytimes.com site:npr.org
to work so that we can search multiple reliable sources at one shot?
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)One user would like to use a press release and report cited to the Institute for Legal Reform (a U.S. special-interest group "set up by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to defend business interests in court" - see here) to support various claims at Newport News asbestos litigation. This includes the claim that "Newport News lawyers specializing in asbestos claims regularly manipulate litigation" and other contentious assertions. I object to the citation of this lobbying group for such claims (particularly in wikivoice) and believe that we should rely on other sources (e.g., journalism, scholarly writings, think tanks) instead.
Comments are much-appreciated. Please consolidate discussion by weighing in at Talk:Newport News asbestos litigation. Neutrality talk 22:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been established and I missed the discussion (I'm afraid I stopped following after the RfC result)- but how do we treat repeated insertions of it as a ref? Not withsatnding our usual tools against disruptive editing, of course. I assumed that there would be an edit filter, but maybe that hasn't been kicked in yet? Just wondered if a new policy / guideline had been established. A situation has arisen on Loch Ness Monster, is my reason for asking. Many thanks for any information. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
A situation has arisen on Loch Ness Monster. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I realize all that will really be happening is that an edit filter will be in place letting editors know that the Mail is extremely problematic as a source. But ... the practical effect will be as the media worldwide has been reading it: no use of the Daily Mail whatsoever. So there will be editors who apply this overbroadly, much as the caveats on linking to YouTube have been understood by too many editors, even established ones, as a blanket prohibition (I have made that link more times than I can remember to explain a reverted edit).
To be perfectly clear I have no objection to this decision. We need not explain it in our own words; all that is necessary is this quote from the Gawker exposé cited multiply in the discussion that led to it:
In August 2013, a few months after I started work, the Mail was sued by a woman whom the Mail had identified as a porn star with HIV. The only problem with that was that the woman was not a porn star and did not have HIV.
You can't serve that one any drier. One is reminded of the Soviet-era Armenian Radio joke with the long punchline that ends "But in theory, you are correct" (or begins with "in principle, yes", as Armeniapedia has it).
I was aware, even from the other side of the ocean, of the Mail's issues, and from discourse here in the past I had frankly thought this decision had already been taken in some form (I just could never find where, although I thought this 2011 discussion was enough. And that the Mail's sports coverage was excluded from such disfavor for some reason (not that it affects any editing I do, to be honest). I have not hesitated from enforcing this myself in the past.
However, some articles I've developed do have some reliance on sources from the Mail, and in one case I would ask that the source be kept.
I started, years ago before the movie even came out, and have done most of the work on the article about the film version of The Devil Wears Prada. One of the sources I found (footnote 17), some time after the movie's initial release, was a piece in the Mail by Liz Jones about her time as editor of the British edition of Marie Claire and the perspective it gave her on the movie's depiction of fashion journalism (Shorter version: it's a lot easier to become Miranda Priestley than you might think, even if you have no prior experience in fashion and don't think you're all that and potato chips). I would argue that in this case it should be kept, since it is a)the first-person perspective of a notable person who verifiably had the experience she described and b) is undeniably relevant to an aspect of the article subject.
Can things like these be considered before we unleash some of our more obsessive editors on the 12,000+ reported citations of the Mail in our articles? I would argue that we need to view the Mail decision as not a prohibition but a stricture, with content from that source evaluated on a spectrum of credibility.
At one end would be things like, in declining order of skepticism-worthiness:
At the other end would be things like the sort of first-person pieces I discussed above, and matters of pure opinion like reviews of artworks, editorials and op-eds (as long as those are based on real facts).
Another suggestion I have might be that reportage from certain publications about certain things be required to be attributed to those sources inline rather than stated as if they were established (i.e., "The Daily Mail reported that X" instead of just "X"). Daniel Case ( talk) 18:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
And so there's no further confusion, I totally agree that we should not categorize people as LGBTIA until they themselves claim that identity ( Lana Wachowski's gender transition was discussed on the article's talk page years before she confirmed it; only then did we put it in the article with all the backstory about how long it had been rumored, as it is now. I do not think we disserved our readers at all). Daniel Case ( talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
A user has inquired on my talk page about whether this webpage from The Spinoff can be used as a source for " Shape of You" being a tropical house song. In doing research for the article I had actually come across that very webpage, but after finding no information about the website on Wikipedia, I decided to play it safe and forgo using it (I understand that Wikipedia coverage is not what makes a source reliable). Being unable to give an assured answer myself, I've brought the question here. Can this webpage from The Spinoff be used to support a song genre? Thanks. Life of Tau 01:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Is [69] "Occult America: The Secret History of how Mysticism Shaped Our Nation" By Mitch Horowitz
a reliable source for asserting that Napoleon Hill was "inspired by the New Thought movement]]?
Note that this source states "most inspirational literature published in America between 1875 and 1955 had some New Thought bent" which is an extraordinarily broad hook on which to label Hill, Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale as "New Thought writers."
"New Thought" is apparently The concept of New Thought (sometimes known as "Higher Thought"[3]) promotes the ideas that Infinite Intelligence, or God, is everywhere, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect ."
Napoleon Hill does not fall under this definition, nor does Horowitz ascribe such a belief to Hill and others.
In fact, this source states:
"New Thought" was specifically an occult belief system, to which these authors did not belong at all, nor do other sources aver that they are believers in the occult. Ascribing membership in a group believing in the occult when there is no source making that claim, and this source connects them only be metaphor, in fact calling them "nonreligious", is not a "strong source" in my opinion, for explicitly connecting them in Wikipedia's voice to that occult group. Collect ( talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Collect and Ian.thomson: Collect is correct about this source. It is being cherry picked to make the false claim that Napoleon Hill was a New Thought author. I don't know the reasons for that, but please note the problem with this source:
@ Ian.thomson:, to address your comment about non-religious authors being influenced by religious authors, the tenets of New Thought are quite simple and are based on the Bible, sayings of Jesus in the New Testament, and are universal to all religions. At lot of it is based on the Golden Rule, which does not depend on religion. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
But we're not labeling anyone as part of an occult belief system. We're simply identifying influences. Of course, Hill is prominently listed in Amazon's, GoodReads, and many others' New Thought authors lists, so there's not only the issue of New Thought influencing Hill, but that Hill is seen as a New Thought author under the "broad hook" that includes Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale. The single source seems fine for the information. I'd certainly like to expand upon it with more sources to make the distinctions discussed here, on the article talk page, and in the numerous sources discussed on the article talk page. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
With several users claiming that none of the nine sources used in The Russian Bride is in any way reliable, but unwilling to explain or discuss, I'm asking for input. Note that this still remains relevant even after the article is deleted, (a) for my and everyone's understanding and (b) since in that case the article may well be resurrected in the nearby future, as development of the topic is ongoing. The following sources are used.
Thanks in advance. Lyrda ( talk) 23:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this is very helpful. I included the trailer because it has attracted a lot of attention, primarily of course among Kristina Pimenova followers. Lyrda ( talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I want to add this text to the article for Sebastian Gorka but the text is being kept out on the pretext that the Forward is not a reliable source:
In February 2017, the Forward reported that while Gorka was active in Hungarian politics, he had "close ties then to Hungarian far-right circles". [1] The Forward also reported that he "has in the past chosen to work with openly racist and anti-Semitic groups and public figures." [1] The Forward found that "Gorka’s involvement with the far right includes co-founding a political party with former prominent members of Jobbik, a political party with a well-known history of anti-Semitism; repeatedly publishing articles in a newspaper known for its anti-Semitic and racist content; and attending events with some of Hungary’s most notorious extreme-right figures." [1]
References
I also want to add that this story has been republished by Haaretz [70], and re-reported by Foreign Policy magazine [71], New York Magazine [72] and the New Yorker [73]. I am here to enquire as to whether the Forwards should be considered a reliable source and this content included in the article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice in the Bankstown Central Shopping Centre article , someone has used this http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/humanity/2007/mbailey3.html to justify the statement the Centre remains an important part of the civic life of this region of Sydney. firstly the source doesn't say it, and this is just a symposium paper. LibStar ( talk) 03:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So I noticed that BuzzFeed said "Everyone knows that Twitter and Facebook spread bad information and hate speech. But YouTube may be even worse." [74]
In a related story, Joseph Stalin is reported[ Citation Need ed to have said "Everyone knows that Mao Zedong and Pol Pot have killed a lot of people. But Adolf Hitler may be even worse." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about the Japanese weekly Shukan Shincho? It's being used as a source for something that might be considered contentious at Kim Jong-nam. He died recently enough that I think this could still be considered a BLP issue. Discussion is at Talk:Kim Jong-nam#Tokyo bathhouse. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 03:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not talking about blogs by contributors but those written by the staff. See examples listed under: Alexia Tsotsis, Andrew Sweeney, Connie Loisos, Sarah Perez. Off-course that excludes articles about partner companies disclosed which are Amazon, Skimlinks, and Wirecutter, The New York Times. They seem legit because in past they have retracted mistakes [75] —አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 21:05, 23 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 219 | Archive 220 | Archive 221 | Archive 222 | Archive 223 | → | Archive 225 |
The mainstream view on the term "Kurd" is that was originally the designation of Iranian nomadic tribes, and that the Persian name was adapted into Arabic as "kurd-". One user is marginalizing the mainstream view (claiming it is the view of "some others", and moving the mainstream view to the end of the section), and pushing fringe theories most likely taken from ultra-nationalist websites.
His sources for the fringe view is a British empire era scholar from the 1920s ("Driver, G. R. "The Name Kurd and Its Philological Connexions") and a fringe nationalist writer ("Mirawdali, Kemal. KURDISTAN & KURDS. The Kurdish Information Centre. p. 11.").
Are these sources really strong enough to use them in the beginning of the section, or even use them at all in the article?
The same fringe theory is pushed in the article Origin of the Kurds and Kurds by the same user, and the mainstream view is also marginalized in these articles.
As seen on other pages (for example [1]), the user seems to be part of a group of meatpuppets who are pushing anti-christian [2] [3] anti-turkish [4] [5] [6] [7], anti-muslim [8], , anti-iranian [9] , anti-woman [10] [11] and ultra-nationalist [12] edits in all kind of articles.
Sigh...The anon from "France"(!) is Turkish nationalist sockmaster Lrednuas Senoroc with an another "proxy"-stalking the same Kurdish nationalist editor Ferakp again. I'll add that proxy sock to SPI. 46.221.181.198 ( talk) 00:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
This board can only comment on the sources. The Kurdish Information Centre is an advocacy group and in no way reliable for etymology. Driver was a distinguished scholar but his work is completely out of date now, so I would not support including anything based solely on him. Pre-1945 history is often nationalistic, or is spun for nationalistic ends. Concerns about meat-puppetry need to be discussed elsewhere. Itsmejudith ( talk) 11:45, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
“The Kurdish Information Centre” source was already reverted 13 days ago per WP:RS, but for some reason, the IP mentioned it here. That is to say, we are discussing the reliability of an inexistent source now. As for Godfrey Rolles Driver, the source was published on 1923 and seems outdated. Plus, as far as I can see, user Ferakp was warned by @ Doug Weller: on his talk page regarding reliability of the same source on 30 January. However, despite the warning, he added the same source on an another article on 31 January 1. 46.221.187.227 ( talk) 13:51, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
The wikipedia article on the Tiger_Forces, a special forces unit in the Syrian Arab Army relies only on blog articles from
The article is found here Tiger_Forces
Long passages such as
After successful operations in Latakia and Hama, Colonel Suheil al-Hassan was tasked a special project by the Syrian Armed Forces Central Command in the fall of 2013—to train and lead a Special Forces unit that would work primarily as an offensive unit. Colonel Hassan handpicked many of the soldiers that would later form the Tiger Forces.
are cited to one blog article http://www.almasdarnews.com/article/colonel-suheil-al-hassan-tiger-forces/ that is unverifiable and unsupported.
The author of these articles is Leith Fadel, who has a strong bias in favor of Bahar Al-Assad and the forces supporting him. Al Masdar news is a blog written by Leith Fadel and articles do not provide any type of verification. These articles do not provide verification and cannot be considered either reliable or verifiable. Furthermore, Leith Fadel has a history of making unverifiable claims, some of which have caused harm to other individuals. Evidence of this is found in this article:
Example
Mr. Fadel, whose Facebook profile photograph shows him with the Syrian ambassador to the United Nations, tempered his criticism of Mr. Mohsen on Wednesday, saying, “Whether he is a former fighter or not, I cannot confirm — but I am happy his son is safe.” Still, the pro-government journalist’s Facebook post appears to have helped spread the rumor that Mr. Mohsen was either a supporter or a member of Nusra far and wide.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.178.3.79 ( talk • contribs) 02:49, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, maybe it is time we did just ban all newspapers (and indeed any TV news programs/channels) that have a reputation for making stuff up and telling out right lies.
(Soapbox alert)
The standards and integrity of modern journalism has (I think) reached an all time low, much lower then when Wikipedia was first established (and even then it looked upon the press through rose tinted glasses).
As such I think we actually need to either have a blanket change of policy on RS (not new organisations unless it can be shown they have a reputation for accuracy and fact checking) or widen the "daily Mail rule to include other (currently) RS. I prefer the latter, and as such.
I can see a reason for this given that even some major news outlets (such as CNN and Fox) do seem to just repeat any damn lie. But it may not be practicable. Slatersteven ( talk) 10:47, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
11:27, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
The Daily Express. It tries to copy the Daily Mail but does not have the staff or ability to do it properly (not that the DM is a role model) (this is a shame given it's once great reputation). Slatersteven ( talk) 10:30, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Perhaps we need a shortcut to that section à la the existing WP:DAILYMAIL link, something like WP:DAILYEXPRESS? Daniel Case ( talk) 17:14, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
If we are going to compile a list, we need to include the ones that everyone agrees are unreliable such as The Onion.
Let me do a quick check...
I didn't get a warning from an edit filter. It seems wrong to get a warning when using The Daily Mail as a source but not when using The Onion as a source. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 12:45, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Banning The Onion seems a bit ridiculous to me and a sign that the discussion is derailing. Since The Onion is satire site it is obviously not a news source and we should start arbitrary things because they aren't news sources. Otherwise we're starting to ban literature and comedians and who knows what else. Also note there are other reason than news to cite a source, which will be affected by the filter as well. A link to The Onion is certainly needed in an article on The Onion itsself. There might be articles on comedy or satire topics and authors were citing The Onion might be appropiate.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 05:19, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Since this seems to be a wish list, I nominate Forbes.com. While never great, the website now seems to be borderline WP:ELNO#EL3 bad. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 21:42, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
Before this recent Daily Mail thing? -- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 16:23, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Not that I am aware, but maybe we should start. Slatersteven ( talk) 19:02, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
I brought this up and someone asked so I thought I would link to at least one very early discussion about the Huffington Post in regards to whether or not it was considered a reliable source. By 2008 discussion of it was already something that came up often.-- Mark Miller ( talk) 04:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC).
In response to the close of the Daily Mail RFC I have been "encouraged to review" our article on St Paul's Survives to "remove/replace [citations to the Daily Mail] as appropriate". I think it would be helpful to sound out what is appropriate in this case. The DM sourcing seems to be: (1) to attribute the photograph discussed which is hosted at File:Stpaulsblitz.jpg with a non-free use claim. (2) A statement by Herbert Mason, the photographer, in DM. (3) An article by Max Hastings sourced to dailymail.co.uk in 2010. [19] What removal or replacement is required? An alternative source of reference might be Blitz on Britain although that is authored by "Daily Mail" but published by Transatlantic Press, ISBN 978-1907176715. [20] Is this publisher a reliable source and, given the authorship, this book itself? Thincat ( talk) 09:19, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Original poster here. Since this particular topic has now gone quiet and no changes have been made to the article or the corresponding file, I'll say what my take is on this. No one has suggested that any of the references to the Daily Mail should be removed or replaced and some people have suggested that some references should not be removed. It seems in at least one case the person is replying in a way they consider is indicated by the close of the RFC rather than their personal opinion. Thank you everyone very much. If there are further comments I shall still be keeping an eye open here. Thincat ( talk) 21:24, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not entirely sure if this is the correct page to be posting this, however, I urge people to google the words "wikipedia daily mail ban" (without the quotes). The media are clearly interpreting this as a ban, no matter how nuanced the closing remarks and comments at the RfC were. DrChrissy (talk) 22:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)
Sadly, "ban" is a 3-letter word. Newspapers love short words, even if they might not capture all the nuance.
The Daily Mail is claiming this was politically motivated. See the last three paragraphs in the latest update of the Guardian piece. [21]
“All those people who believe in freedom of expression should be profoundly concerned at this cynical politically motivated attempt to stifle the free press.”
-- Anthonyhcole ( talk · contribs · email) 07:28, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
Hello all. I have just noticed some edits to Snugburys that reference this Daily Mail article. On a search I can't find any other sources that make particular reference to the things which are sourced to the DM articles (and nor can User:Mike Peel). Equally, applying normal editorial judgement there appears to be no reason to doubt the Daily Mail's article: it is consistent with a number of other sources, and giant straw scupltures is not known as an area in which the Mail is prone to exaggeration, fabrication, or bias. How should one approach this issue in the light of the Daily Mail RfC? Regards, The Land ( talk) 22:23, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
There is an RfC going on at the article concerning Tomas Gorny. Some individuals (whom I suspect are possibly paid to oppose the inclusion of an article published on Forbes) are opposing the inclusion of this article, potentially in order to WP:GAME the system. I suspect this because one editor is a newly created SPA account and another editor who has not edited in a while both voted to delete the source. Now, the Forbes article is written by a Forbes staff writer, Susan Adams, who has received notable accolades for her work there. Your non-partisan commentary at the RfC discussion would be duly appreciated. Happy Valentine's Day (or Singles Awareness Day, whichever you prefer), Eliko007 ( talk) 20:11, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
This Google Map is being used at the article NoMad, Manhattan to support the claim that the neighborhood's northern boundary is 30th Street, while a clearly reliable source from The New York Times cites 29th Street. In this edit, Beyond My Ken (who I hope will comment here), has used both sources and stated that different northern boundaries are cited.
While I think that this edit is balanced and appropriate, the basic question is the underlying reliability of Google Maps as an arbiter of the boundaries, as I have no idea where Google has gotten its information. Alansohn ( talk) 02:38, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
True, we seem to have become a little too focused on this particular issue, and have sidelined your original question. I would say that Google maps is generally a reliable source, but where it conflicts with another more conventional reliable source, we should go with the other one (as they are likely an aggregator, much like Wikipedia). Moreover, most of the time the information contained in google maps would be found in other more reliable sources, such as government maps or archived data. I would be very much in opposition to saying that google maps is in general an 'unreliable' source, particularly because sometimes they are cited for material which is original and not found elsewhere (I have seen street view images which randomly found something notable become highly cited primary sources, though I can't remember where). So in short, yes, I would consider it generally reliable. But when other reliable sources exist that conflict with it, I would assume that Google maps made a mistake, and cite the other source instead. That being said, even in this case, it doesn't appear that they have made a mistake, their definition seems to be more or less an average of other popular definitions and identical to another one cited in the NYT, which adds credibility to the accuracy of Google maps. Someguy1221 however, makes a good point that google maps can change without notice and does't track changes, which is an issue, and another reason that in cases of conflict i would trust other sources more highly. Insert CleverPhrase Here 06:10, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
I know this is hyper partisan, but is it otherwise reliable?
Benjamin ( talk) 01:17, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm poking this noticeboard, since it seems far more active than WP:NPOVN noticeboard. After a few days of waiting for a third opinion there, I've given up. A recent article led to a bit of back and forth at Donald Trump-Russia dossier, and I've had a bit of an unusual interaction with the locals there regarding the use and misuse of the Paul Gregory Forbes.com piece. This is not strictly a reliable sources question, although my understanding is that Forbes.com in general is not regarded as an acceptable source. I believe that it is a reliable source in the present context, which is for the opinion of its author, but the question remains what WP:WEIGHT to assign that opinion. Please opine at Talk:Donald Trump–Russia dossier#Forbes / Paul Gregory, if you are so inclined. Sławomir Biały ( talk) 23:18, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Can somebody explain to me how we got to the point where the Daily Mail article covers Wikipedia's "banning" with a Huffington Post? I see something severely wrong if we put ourselves in a position where we reject a printed source but enable blogging-style sources like Huffington Post. Nergaal ( talk) 23:34, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
I haven't looked in detail but maybe these cases are worth studying:
Nergaal ( talk) 15:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
However, I would agree that their listicle-type material is not something we should use. Daniel Case ( talk) 00:28, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, convince me. Start with this story: [27] Find the place in the Huffington Post that the story refers to and post the URL. Is it presented as material from the Huffington Post (you know, the way the Daily Mail has done repeaedly) or is it a "Buzzfeed said" article? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 15:52, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
+Thanksgiving +plane site:huffingtonpost.com
and got the following result:A new user recently added a citation [28] to Logan Browning from a "news" source called Article Bio. Deeply concerning is the 404-error located at the privacy policy and homepage parts of this site. No "About" section can be found leading me to believe it should not be a reliable source.-- ☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 03:07, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
http://baltimore-art.com/2017/02/11/the-aesthetics-of-the-alt-right/
Is this a reliable source?
Benjamin ( talk) 22:27, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice in the Bankstown Central Shopping Centre article , someone has used this http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/humanity/2007/mbailey3.html to justify the statement the Centre remains an important part of the civic life of this region of Sydney. firstly the source doesn't say it, and this is just a symposium paper. LibStar ( talk) 01:06, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
As the source says, "Basirat news and analysis website is an Iranian think tank based in Tehran aims to ‘scientifically and methodologically’ explore the international political developments and significant news stories, owend by IRGC political department."
My question is if we can use materials by this source in Middle eastern and political related topics? Specifically, how can this interview be used in those mentioned articles? Thanks -- Mhhossein talk 13:09, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Can anyone provide examples of where using Daily Mail articles has resulted in inaccurate information being presented in Wikipedia articles? TFD ( talk) 18:25, 14 February 2017 (UTC)
Per WP:DEADHORSE. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 18:20, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
A closer of any discussion must be disinterested and uninvolved. Alas, the closer here has made specific and numerous posts here on this topic. Closing commented out as a result. Collect ( talk) 18:10, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
Source: Judah, Tim (2008).
Bikila: Ethiopia's Barefoot Olympian. London: Reportage Press. p. 23.
ISBN
978-0-955830211.
OCLC
310218562. {{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)
Article: Abebe Bikila
Content: In 1969, on the night of March 22, Abebe was driving his Volkswagen Beetle when he lost control and the vehicle overturned with him trapped inside. [1] According to Judah, it is possible he may have been drinking. [2] [3] However, Judah also quotes Abebe's own accounts of that night which contradict this and admits that it is difficult to know for certain what happened that night. [3]
References
Is this appropriate? Should I include this? Relevant quotes in Judah (2008):
On his way back he was spotted in Debre Berhan, in a bar, at 9:00 pm.
Wami Biratu and Hailu Abebe both dismiss the notion that there was anything suspicious about the accident. Maybe the account in Tsige's book is completely accurate, [or] maybe he had too much to drink. We shall never know...
Wami Biratu and Hailu Abebe (no relation) were friends of his and with him earlier that night. Tsige Abebe is Abebe Bikila's daughter who also wrote a biography on Bikila in 1996 which contains Bikila's account of that night. Tim Judah quotes her extensively in his biography. Judah never states who spotted him in a bar. And in the same paragraph he continues:
...maybe he had too much to drink. We shall never know. Nevertheless, rumours spread like wildfire. The gist of them was that an attempt had been made on the life of Bikila by a wronged and jealous husband. There were also stories that the car crash was a cover up and that Bikila had in fact been shot. Needless to say, there is no proof of any of this, but the fact that these stories were widely believed says something about Bikila's reputation.
Sorry if the patronymics make it difficult. I just wanted an opinion on this. Take a look at the guardian article too.—አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 06:41, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
At Social media, one or more unregistered editors are insisting that this article is a reliable source for the fairly mundane claim that "text was indicated as the most important reason among Internet users." I challenge the reliability of this source and any other source published by David Publishing. The briefest of searches turns up numerous reports and warnings (e.g., this post] from Leiter Reports, this post on an academic's personal blog, this post on another academic's personal blog) from academics, including librarians (e.g., this post from Syracuse, this post on the personal blog of another academic librarian]) who are experts in this area, that this is a predatory publisher. It was included on Jeffrey Beall's list of predatory publishers; here is an archive of that list and here is a specific tweet from Beall about this publisher.
Given the overwhelming evidence that this publisher is predatory and a scammer, nothing it has published can possibly be considered reliable and should be cited in Wikipedia articles. ElKevbo ( talk) 21:33, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
This isn't exactly about reliability, but y'all know the MOS, perhaps. Please look at at this edit--this is the first time I hear that the location is somehow important in citing an article from a magazine: there are no different Car and Drivers or Auto Expresses for different countries, as far as I know. Pinging Stepho-wrs. Drmies ( talk) 00:52, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Recent edits were made to the Tsamiko and Osman Taka articles which are about Greek and Albanian dances of the wider Epirus region. Editors at the talkpages [32], [33] have expressed concerns the sources don't meet the set Wikipedia standards. Various sources like Youtube and other web sources were used to question references. The first source is by Eno Koço (2015), A Journey of the Vocal Iso(n) [34], Cambridge Scholars Publishing. Editors have referred to his works as "he recycles the typical ultranationalistic Albanian pov" [35] regarding page 4, 78. For me however, i only based my sentences on pages 14-16 which were relevant to the two articles. In those Koço also cities chunks of a Greek scholar Chiani's work. I ask because Koço is a Professor [36] at the University of Leeds in Britain and his book was published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing [37], meeting i thought the requirements of wp:reliable and wp:secondary. The other source is a chapter by Dr. Eckehard Pistrick [38] (from the Martin Luther University of Halle-Wittenberg) "Whose is the song? Fieldwork views on multipart singing as expression of identities at South Albanian border" [39], contained in an edited book Balkan border crossings: First annual of the Konitsa Summer School compiled by Vassilis Nitsiakos [40] and published by Lit Verlag. Editors have said on the talkpage that the source does not meet the requirements while on my part i thought the source meets wp:reliable and wp:secondary. Advice on the sources would be most appreciated and welcomed by editors. Best. Resnjari ( talk) 21:11, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
I recently made a substantive change to an article which was reverted. I was annoyed at this because the editor gave no reason for the reversion while I had quoted a Wikipedia article in support of my change, feeling as there could be no more impeccable source that Wikipedia itself while editing on Wikipedia. Therefore, I reverted his reversion. He then provided a reason which I accepted in astonishment, so no conflict. However, this brings up a broader point. He linked to; WP:NOTSOURCE. It reads in part:
"Wikipedia is not a reliable source. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone at any time. This means that any information it contains at any particular time may not be accurate and may indeed be vandalism."
My reaction to this was:
“Whoever wrote this rule should consider advertising as a career. ‘Buy my product. It is entirely unreliable.’ As the unrepentant Scrooge noted: 'I shall retire to Bedlam.'"
For the benefit of those of us who might not be as well versed in Wiki history and rule making, could someone seek to explain and justify this seemingly bizarre rule? First off, I remember hearing of a study stating that Wiki is as accurate as other encyclopedias, including print ones. I have personally noted errors in past editions of print encyclopedias. So why should they be accepted as more legitimate than Wiki? Secondly, if someone were to use another Wiki article as a source for an article and there is an error within the source article, that can be challenged on both articles like any other source. If anything, Wiki has the formidable advantage over print encyclopedias in that errors can be rapidly corrected when noted and agreed upon whereas a print encyclopedia would have to wait until the next edition. It is demeaning to all the people who have put their time and research on a volunteer basis into many superlative Wiki articles to in effect be called unworthy to be used as a source and makes a farce out the entire momentous effort that is Wikipedia! if Wiki editors have such a low opinion of ourselves, then why should we expect anyone else to feel otherwise?
Does anyone here agree with me, and, if so, how do we try to get this ridiculous rule expunged from the Wiki canon? Who has the power to do this and how do we present our case?
Thank you. HistoryBuff14 ( talk) 15:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
Noticing how the B'Tselem's website differentiates between casualties among Israeli security forces and Israeli civilians, but doesn't offers a parallel classification of Palestinian casualties, I was inclined to look closer at their statistical data. I examined the downloadable .csv file listing 3,031 deaths since January 2009 in the West Bank and Gaza, and did find a relevant rubric titled Took part in the hostilities. However, since October 2014, 217 of 250 casualties' participation in hostilities has been deemed Irrelevant (23 listed as No, 10 as Yes). Here are a few questionable examples from last year's casualties, accompanied by the description offered by B'Tselem in the same file:
I call into question the reliability of their statistics on non-combatant casualties.-- ארינמל ( talk) 09:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
|
I wasn't sure if this should go here, ELN or CP, and basically decided on RSN because I'm more familiar with this venue. Basically, individual romanizations for each character in the text are WP:BLUE so I could include them inline without a source, but I didn't want to look them up individually and copy-pasted them from some random blog (I checked several of them in a reliable source and the random blog, Poetry Nook, seems to be accurate), and I inserted a citation of said blog. It's my understanding that for BLUE material, no citation and a citation of a generally unreliable source are equally acceptable (or in other words, the generally unreliable source is adequate for extremely uncontentious information), but...
I worry that several other pages on Poetry Nook (not the one linked) might violate copyrights and so would fall under WP:ELNEVER. Specifically, I found unattributed translations of works of the same poet. I have no reliable way of knowing one way or the other whether the translations were stolen from someone, the unnamed contributors who uploaded them were the original translators/copyrightholders, or Poetry Nook's short quotations would fall under fair use and so us linking them would not be us linking a COPYVIO page.
Should I:
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 07:54, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Dispute over any use of this Novak source at all in Napoleon Hill.
The journalist Matt Novak writes that Hill married his second wife Edith Whitman in 1903, and that Hill's first child, Edith Whitman Hill, was born in 1905. Whitman's existence is not mentioned in Hill's official biography, but is corroborated by contemporary news accounts. [1] Hill and Whitman divorced in 1908.[43]
Hill made largely unverifiable claims to have personally met several prominent figures of his time, such as industrialist Andrew Carnegie and US Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt; however, according to at least one modern source, there exists little evidence that Hill had actually ever encountered any of these celebrities, with the exception of Thomas Edison.
Hill said he personally met several prominent figures of his time, such as industrialist Andrew Carnegie and US Presidents Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Delano Roosevelt.
After becoming estranged from Whitman, Hill moved to Mobile, Alabama in 1907 and co-founded the Acree-Hill Lumber Company. Novak accuses Hill of running this company as a fraudulent scheme; between 1907 and 1908, Hill took between $10,000 and $20,000 worth of lumber on credit, and then sold off the lumber at low prices without intending to repay his creditors. By September 1908, the Pensacola Journal reported that Hill was on the run, as he faced criminal proceedings, bankruptcy proceedings, charges of mail fraud, and warrants for his arrest. [2] [3]
By December 1908, Hill had fled to Washington, D.C., seeking to reinvent himself. At this point, Hill started introducing himself by his middle name, Napoleon.
Later in his life, Hill would claim that he spent the years of 1917-1918 advising president Woodrow Wilson amidst World War I. However, the journalist Matt Novak denies that Hill ever met Wilson, noting that Hill's publishings at the time omit any reference to such an occurrence. [2]
In 1935, Hill's wife Florence filed for a divorce in Florida. In 1936, the 53-year-old Hill entered his fourth marriage with the 29-year-old Rosa Lee Beeland, less than 2 days after the two met at a lecture in Knoxville, Tennessee. [2]
By early 1939, Novak claims that the "Hills were yet again nearly broke." [2]
The majority of all talk page discussion is over the use of this source. So, is it reliable for any of this content, alone or when supported by the newspapers cited? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:29, 15 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: Your diffs are useless as they do not show editors removing the material and you and OMG reverting them. What's the point of posting them if we cannot see where editors are disputing the material based on questioned sources and you and OMG reverting them without justifying those sources. SW3 5DL ( talk) 18:18, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
The material on Mr. Hill appears to be of an editorial nature ("Greatest Self-Help Scammer of All Time" appears to be specifically an article about "scammer" rather than a simple biography of a specific person - who was not apparently convicted of anything, as far as I can tell). , rather than a scholarly article about the person, and the "naughty bits" appear not to be supported by other sources about the person. The author is not an expert in the field, and thus I have sincere doubts about it being a "reliable source" for contentious claims. As a result, the desire is to obtain better sources for such material. Collect ( talk) 00:07, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
While we are here, the biography also includes cites for the National Cyclopaedia of American Biography which appears to use biographical information without citations and, in its Wikipedia article, is noted as "The entries in the National Cyclopaedia are unsigned and are largely based upon questionnaires and other information supplied by families of the biographees." A Google News Archive search which is a 404. Also several sources are used repeatedly as though they were separate sources. Biographies which include "The organization was headed by the check forger and former convict Butler Storke, who was sent back to prison in 1923." appear problematic on their face - sourced to [49] used for ten "separate cites." In short, alas, a bit of a mess for a Wikipedia article. I had sought to clean it up a bit, but was insta-reverted. Collect ( talk) 14:42, 16 February 2017 (UTC) Note also that "Oliver N. Hill" is not a unique name. [50] shows one born in MI living in NM in 1940. Unless a newspaper gives stronger linkage to a specific person, the claim is not usable. Collect ( talk) 14:49, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
I'll just briefly reiterate my points from the talk page, and say that I think the concerns over the Paleofuture "blog" are a bit overblown. Paleofuture may call itself a "blog" on Gizmodo, but it's not self-published livejournal or anything. From a structural point of view, it's just a normal part of Gizmodo, a news website. Per http://gizmodo.com/about Gizmodo has an editor-in-chief, several editors, etc., as one would expect from a news organization. And Matt Novak isn't just some random guy-- he's a reasonably well-known journalist, and a "senior writer" on Gizmodo who is presumably subject to editorial oversight. And frankly, when it comes down to it, I trust Novak's work more than that of Hill's promoters, who seem to be the writers of most other secondary sources on the man. OmgItsTheSmartGuy ( talk) 18:05, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
The content of Matt Novak's blog post is the issue here. The question is whether or not it is reliable. You say Gizmodo is used widely on Wikipedia, but in what context? What content from Gizmodo is being used? This blog is being used to source a biography, and whether or not Gizmodo has been used as a source on Wikipedia in general, it is this particular blog post that is in question here. With its sophomoric sarcasm, it does not represent a reliable telling of the life of Napoleon Hill. Matt Novak has no expertise on the subject. He's not a biographer or a historian, and that would be okay if what he wrote was a serious piece of journalism, but it is not. SW3 5DL ( talk) 01:32, 17 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Andrewa and MrOllie: It's the content of the blog that is at issue. Even if this were in the New York Times, it is opinion, and generally we don't use opinion. So the credibility of the website/source does not give cover to what is essentially a sarcastic, unsourced attack piece. The WP:RS is specific the biographies of living or dead persons must be well sourced. This is clearly not an acceptable source, especially when other reliable sources exist. I also agree that it is poor practice to insert Matt Novak's name into edits. One other thing to note is that the reliable sources on Hill have been labeled 'Hill promoters" by OmgitsTheSmartGuy. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:46, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
(The comments below were started
[51] in response to SW3 5DL's
[52], Your diffs are useless as they do not show editors removing the material and you and OMG reverting them. What's the point of posting them if we cannot see where editors are disputing the material based on questioned sources and you and OMG reverting them without justifying those sources.
--
Ronz (
talk) 21:18, 21 February 2017 (UTC))
@ Ronz: please don't move my edits. This particular edit was made on February 18th and I've restored it. Also please do not rewrite your edits after editors have responded to you. SW3 5DL ( talk) 02:40, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Ronz: You need to stop this disruption of the discussion thread. As Andrewa notes, you can be blocked for this behavior. And refactoring my comment by adding talk quote and moving it again, is deliberate disruption. SW3 5DL ( talk) 19:50, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
I would suggest we just hat the mess above, right back to the first disputed contribution (whatever that is), and start again. I'm happy to do it if someone will identify the earliest problem for me. Andrewa ( talk) 22:28, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Novak
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).I noticed a new user adding lots of external links to journeymart.com. I thought at first this might just be spamming, but I see that the site is actually used as a reference in dozens of articles, suggesting that other editors have found it to be a useful source of information. It's a travel portal with some commercial offerings, but I can't really tell if the content at the site is reliable or not, so I'm asking for others' opinions. Deli nk ( talk) 12:58, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I've seen a few entries here where Mondoweiss is concerned but nothing really definitive. It is my assertion that it can't be used as a RS especially for items within the Middle East conflict. It is not a neutral, reliable source. It has an agenda and it is pretty open about that agenda. The same way users throw out right wing entries merely for being right wing, or pro-Israeli, such as Arutz Sheva, Mondoweiss should not be allowed as a RS. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Over at Israel on Campus Coalition, there were some recent edits which read like PR. [62] So I tried Google news search to see if something better could be found. The top three search results in Google news search [63] are Algemeiner (Jewish), Breitbart News ( alt-right), and Mondoweiss ("progressive and anti-Zionist"). There's nothing on the first page of search results which can be considered a neutral reliable source. This is discouraging. John Nagle ( talk) 20:31, 18 February 2017 (UTC)
-site:breitbart.com -site:abcnews.com.co -site:nationalreport.net -site:infowars.com -site:wnd.com -site:naturalnews.com
site:
qualifiers in a search always fails for me, yet using multiple negative qualifiers as in your example seems to be OK. Do you know if there's a way to get something like site:bbc.com site:nytimes.com site:npr.org
to work so that we can search multiple reliable sources at one shot?
Shock Brigade Harvester Boris (
talk) 00:41, 23 February 2017 (UTC)One user would like to use a press release and report cited to the Institute for Legal Reform (a U.S. special-interest group "set up by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to defend business interests in court" - see here) to support various claims at Newport News asbestos litigation. This includes the claim that "Newport News lawyers specializing in asbestos claims regularly manipulate litigation" and other contentious assertions. I object to the citation of this lobbying group for such claims (particularly in wikivoice) and believe that we should rely on other sources (e.g., journalism, scholarly writings, think tanks) instead.
Comments are much-appreciated. Please consolidate discussion by weighing in at Talk:Newport News asbestos litigation. Neutrality talk 22:53, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
Apologies if this has been established and I missed the discussion (I'm afraid I stopped following after the RfC result)- but how do we treat repeated insertions of it as a ref? Not withsatnding our usual tools against disruptive editing, of course. I assumed that there would be an edit filter, but maybe that hasn't been kicked in yet? Just wondered if a new policy / guideline had been established. A situation has arisen on Loch Ness Monster, is my reason for asking. Many thanks for any information. O Fortuna! ...Imperatrix mundi. 13:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
A situation has arisen on Loch Ness Monster. Tigraan Click here to contact me 13:25, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
I realize all that will really be happening is that an edit filter will be in place letting editors know that the Mail is extremely problematic as a source. But ... the practical effect will be as the media worldwide has been reading it: no use of the Daily Mail whatsoever. So there will be editors who apply this overbroadly, much as the caveats on linking to YouTube have been understood by too many editors, even established ones, as a blanket prohibition (I have made that link more times than I can remember to explain a reverted edit).
To be perfectly clear I have no objection to this decision. We need not explain it in our own words; all that is necessary is this quote from the Gawker exposé cited multiply in the discussion that led to it:
In August 2013, a few months after I started work, the Mail was sued by a woman whom the Mail had identified as a porn star with HIV. The only problem with that was that the woman was not a porn star and did not have HIV.
You can't serve that one any drier. One is reminded of the Soviet-era Armenian Radio joke with the long punchline that ends "But in theory, you are correct" (or begins with "in principle, yes", as Armeniapedia has it).
I was aware, even from the other side of the ocean, of the Mail's issues, and from discourse here in the past I had frankly thought this decision had already been taken in some form (I just could never find where, although I thought this 2011 discussion was enough. And that the Mail's sports coverage was excluded from such disfavor for some reason (not that it affects any editing I do, to be honest). I have not hesitated from enforcing this myself in the past.
However, some articles I've developed do have some reliance on sources from the Mail, and in one case I would ask that the source be kept.
I started, years ago before the movie even came out, and have done most of the work on the article about the film version of The Devil Wears Prada. One of the sources I found (footnote 17), some time after the movie's initial release, was a piece in the Mail by Liz Jones about her time as editor of the British edition of Marie Claire and the perspective it gave her on the movie's depiction of fashion journalism (Shorter version: it's a lot easier to become Miranda Priestley than you might think, even if you have no prior experience in fashion and don't think you're all that and potato chips). I would argue that in this case it should be kept, since it is a)the first-person perspective of a notable person who verifiably had the experience she described and b) is undeniably relevant to an aspect of the article subject.
Can things like these be considered before we unleash some of our more obsessive editors on the 12,000+ reported citations of the Mail in our articles? I would argue that we need to view the Mail decision as not a prohibition but a stricture, with content from that source evaluated on a spectrum of credibility.
At one end would be things like, in declining order of skepticism-worthiness:
At the other end would be things like the sort of first-person pieces I discussed above, and matters of pure opinion like reviews of artworks, editorials and op-eds (as long as those are based on real facts).
Another suggestion I have might be that reportage from certain publications about certain things be required to be attributed to those sources inline rather than stated as if they were established (i.e., "The Daily Mail reported that X" instead of just "X"). Daniel Case ( talk) 18:56, 10 February 2017 (UTC)
And so there's no further confusion, I totally agree that we should not categorize people as LGBTIA until they themselves claim that identity ( Lana Wachowski's gender transition was discussed on the article's talk page years before she confirmed it; only then did we put it in the article with all the backstory about how long it had been rumored, as it is now. I do not think we disserved our readers at all). Daniel Case ( talk) 01:11, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
A user has inquired on my talk page about whether this webpage from The Spinoff can be used as a source for " Shape of You" being a tropical house song. In doing research for the article I had actually come across that very webpage, but after finding no information about the website on Wikipedia, I decided to play it safe and forgo using it (I understand that Wikipedia coverage is not what makes a source reliable). Being unable to give an assured answer myself, I've brought the question here. Can this webpage from The Spinoff be used to support a song genre? Thanks. Life of Tau 01:12, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Is [69] "Occult America: The Secret History of how Mysticism Shaped Our Nation" By Mitch Horowitz
a reliable source for asserting that Napoleon Hill was "inspired by the New Thought movement]]?
Note that this source states "most inspirational literature published in America between 1875 and 1955 had some New Thought bent" which is an extraordinarily broad hook on which to label Hill, Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale as "New Thought writers."
"New Thought" is apparently The concept of New Thought (sometimes known as "Higher Thought"[3]) promotes the ideas that Infinite Intelligence, or God, is everywhere, spirit is the totality of real things, true human selfhood is divine, divine thought is a force for good, sickness originates in the mind, and "right thinking" has a healing effect ."
Napoleon Hill does not fall under this definition, nor does Horowitz ascribe such a belief to Hill and others.
In fact, this source states:
"New Thought" was specifically an occult belief system, to which these authors did not belong at all, nor do other sources aver that they are believers in the occult. Ascribing membership in a group believing in the occult when there is no source making that claim, and this source connects them only be metaphor, in fact calling them "nonreligious", is not a "strong source" in my opinion, for explicitly connecting them in Wikipedia's voice to that occult group. Collect ( talk) 21:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
@ Collect and Ian.thomson: Collect is correct about this source. It is being cherry picked to make the false claim that Napoleon Hill was a New Thought author. I don't know the reasons for that, but please note the problem with this source:
@ Ian.thomson:, to address your comment about non-religious authors being influenced by religious authors, the tenets of New Thought are quite simple and are based on the Bible, sayings of Jesus in the New Testament, and are universal to all religions. At lot of it is based on the Golden Rule, which does not depend on religion. SW3 5DL ( talk) 17:21, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
But we're not labeling anyone as part of an occult belief system. We're simply identifying influences. Of course, Hill is prominently listed in Amazon's, GoodReads, and many others' New Thought authors lists, so there's not only the issue of New Thought influencing Hill, but that Hill is seen as a New Thought author under the "broad hook" that includes Dale Carnegie and Norman Vincent Peale. The single source seems fine for the information. I'd certainly like to expand upon it with more sources to make the distinctions discussed here, on the article talk page, and in the numerous sources discussed on the article talk page. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:10, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
With several users claiming that none of the nine sources used in The Russian Bride is in any way reliable, but unwilling to explain or discuss, I'm asking for input. Note that this still remains relevant even after the article is deleted, (a) for my and everyone's understanding and (b) since in that case the article may well be resurrected in the nearby future, as development of the topic is ongoing. The following sources are used.
Thanks in advance. Lyrda ( talk) 23:34, 19 February 2017 (UTC)
Thanks, this is very helpful. I included the trailer because it has attracted a lot of attention, primarily of course among Kristina Pimenova followers. Lyrda ( talk) 23:48, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
I want to add this text to the article for Sebastian Gorka but the text is being kept out on the pretext that the Forward is not a reliable source:
In February 2017, the Forward reported that while Gorka was active in Hungarian politics, he had "close ties then to Hungarian far-right circles". [1] The Forward also reported that he "has in the past chosen to work with openly racist and anti-Semitic groups and public figures." [1] The Forward found that "Gorka’s involvement with the far right includes co-founding a political party with former prominent members of Jobbik, a political party with a well-known history of anti-Semitism; repeatedly publishing articles in a newspaper known for its anti-Semitic and racist content; and attending events with some of Hungary’s most notorious extreme-right figures." [1]
References
I also want to add that this story has been republished by Haaretz [70], and re-reported by Foreign Policy magazine [71], New York Magazine [72] and the New Yorker [73]. I am here to enquire as to whether the Forwards should be considered a reliable source and this content included in the article. Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 15:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
I notice in the Bankstown Central Shopping Centre article , someone has used this http://www.humanities.mq.edu.au/humanity/2007/mbailey3.html to justify the statement the Centre remains an important part of the civic life of this region of Sydney. firstly the source doesn't say it, and this is just a symposium paper. LibStar ( talk) 03:00, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
So I noticed that BuzzFeed said "Everyone knows that Twitter and Facebook spread bad information and hate speech. But YouTube may be even worse." [74]
In a related story, Joseph Stalin is reported[ Citation Need ed to have said "Everyone knows that Mao Zedong and Pol Pot have killed a lot of people. But Adolf Hitler may be even worse." -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:06, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
Anyone know anything about the Japanese weekly Shukan Shincho? It's being used as a source for something that might be considered contentious at Kim Jong-nam. He died recently enough that I think this could still be considered a BLP issue. Discussion is at Talk:Kim Jong-nam#Tokyo bathhouse. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 03:59, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
I am not talking about blogs by contributors but those written by the staff. See examples listed under: Alexia Tsotsis, Andrew Sweeney, Connie Loisos, Sarah Perez. Off-course that excludes articles about partner companies disclosed which are Amazon, Skimlinks, and Wirecutter, The New York Times. They seem legit because in past they have retracted mistakes [75] —አቤል ዳዊት ? (Janweh64) ( talk) 21:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)