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 220 | Archive 221 | Archive 222 | Archive 223 | Archive 224 | Archive 225 |
From List of Chinese teas article:
Is the following section reliably sourced? There is a main section and two subsections, which I have converted to bold and noted below.
There are several opinions of the best Chinese teas, or the title China's Famous Teas (中国名茶) or Ten Great Chinese Teas (中国十大名茶), depending on current trends in Chinese tea, as well as the region and tastes of the person.
Different sources cite different teas, but the following table compiles ten different such lists and ranks the teas upon recurrence. [1]
Translated English name | Chinese | Pronunciation | Place of origin | Type | Occurrences | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | West Lake Dragon Well | 西湖龙井 | Xī Hú Lóng Jǐng | Hangzhou, Zhejiang | Green tea | 10 |
2 | Dongting Green Snail Spring | 洞庭碧螺春 | Dòng Tíng Bì Luó Chūn | Suzhou, Jiangsu | Green tea | 10 |
3 | Yellow Mountain Fur Peak | 黄山毛峰 | Huáng shān Máo Fēng | Huang Shan, Anhui | Green tea | 10 |
4 | Mount Jun Silver Needle | 君山银针 | Jūn shān Yín Zhēn | Yueyang, Hunan | Yellow tea | 10 |
5 | Qimen Red | 祁门红茶 | Qí Mén Hóng Chá | Qimen, Anhui | Black tea | 10 |
6 | Wuyi Big Red Robe | 武夷大紅袍 | Wǔ Yí Dà Hóng Páo | Wuyi Mountains, Fujian | Oolong tea | 10 |
7 | Lu'an Melon Seed | 六安瓜片 | Lù ān Guā Piàn | Lu'an, Anhui | Green tea | 10 |
8 | Anxi Iron Goddess | 安溪铁观音 | Ān xī Tiě Guān Yīn | Anxi, Fujian | Oolong tea | 10 |
9 | Taiping Houkui | 太平猴魁 | Tài Píng Hóu Kuí | Huang Shan, Anhui | Green tea | 10 |
10 | Xinyang Fur Tip | 信阳毛尖 | Xìn yáng Máo Jiān | Xinyang, Henan | Green tea | 9 |
The following table compiles twenty different such lists and ranks the teas upon recurrence. [2]
Translated English name | Chinese | Pronunciation | Place of origin | Type | Occurrences | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | West Lake Dragon Well | 西湖龙井 | Xī Hú Lóng Jǐng | Hangzhou, Zhejiang | Green tea | 20 |
2 | Dongting Green Snail Spring | 洞庭碧螺春 | Dòng Tíng Bì Luó Chūn | Suzhou, Jiangsu | Green tea | 20 |
3 | Anxi Iron Goddess | 安溪铁观音 | Ān xī Tiě Guān Yīn | Anxi, Fujian | Oolong tea | 18 |
4 | Yellow Mountain Fur Peak | 黄山毛峰 | Huáng shān Máo Fēng | Huang Shan, Anhui | Green tea | 17 |
5 | Mount Jun Silver Needle | 君山银针 | Jūn shān Yín Zhēn | Yueyang, Hunan | Yellow tea | 14 |
6 | Qimen Red | 祁门红茶 | Qí Mén Hóng Chá | Qimen, Anhui | Black tea | 12 |
7 | Wuyi Big Red Robe | 武夷大紅袍 | Wǔ Yí Dà Hóng Páo | Wuyi Mountains, Fujian | Oolong tea | 11 |
8 | Lu'an Melon Seed | 六安瓜片 | Lù ān Guā Piàn | Lu'an, Anhui | Green tea | 11 |
9 | White Fur Silver Needle | 白毫银针 | Bái Háo Yín Zhēn | Fuding, Fujian | White tea | 10 |
10 | Yunnan Pu-erh | 云南普洱 | Yúnnán Pǔ'ěr Chá | Simao, Yunnan | Post-fermented tea | 10 |
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Two sources are being disputed in the article on chiropractic (talk page here). I'm listing them together because they are directly related, and support the same conclusion. One of the sources being disputed is a clinical practice guideline from the Canadian Chiropractic Association on the effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for treatment of different lower extremity issues here, full-text here. The second source is an update of that review, which further expanded the search database, including additional articles and came to the same conclusion here, full-text here.
The statement the studies are being used to support is
[There is] limited or fair evidence supporting chiropractic management of leg conditions.
To see it in context you can see the diff here.
Jmg873 ( talk) 15:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition.
these data fail to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition.
"Ernst et al.’s publication on chiropractic include repeated misuse of references, misleading statements, highly selective use of certain published papers, failure to refer to relevant literature, inaccurate reporting of the contents of published work, and errors in citation. Meticulous analysis of some influential negative reviews has been carried out to determine the objectivity of the data reported. The misrepresentation that became evident deserves full debate and raises serious questions about the integrity of the peer-review process and the nature of academic misconduct." [2] full-text
"The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions." [3]
"In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation." [4]
There are different ways to rank level of evidence in medicine, but they similarly put high level reviews and practice guidelines at the top.Despite that, here we are discussing whether or not a practice guideline should be considered a reliable source. I don't view these as active suppression, but I also don't consider them normal. I'm not attacking the concept of independent review. You brought up Cochrane. I have a huge amount of respect for Cochrane and other agencies performing similar work. I think Cochrane is conservative in their findings (in general, not solely in regard to chiropratic), but they apply an equal lens to everything they examine. I don't take issue with Ernst merely because I don't like his conclusions, some of Cochrane's conclusions aren't what I want, but that doesn't make them wrong. I take issue with Ernst because his work has too many inconsistencies to be considered reliable (as quoted/cited above). Plenty of research finds no effect for chiropractic for a variety of issues, and there's nothing wrong with that. The practical application of mobilization/manipulation is very limited, but the research that exists supports a statement of "limited or fair evidence for leg conditions". The conditions themselves are outlined in the papers, if you'd rather have each condition explicitly stated with it's corresponding grade of evidence rather than summarized as "leg conditions", I'd be fine with that too.
[5] to Sabancı family is being edit-warred into position. There was an RfC back in 2014 which disposed of this, but the sad truth is that the source is not valid for the claim being made.
clearly is an edit intended to place culpability for that on this family. The 2014 RfC came down against that claim, and the claim is WP:OR
The source is "Ungor, Ugur; Polatel, Mehmet (2011). Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property. A&C Black. p. 132." "Sabanci" is not on page 132, nor is "Sabanci" found on any page with the word "genocide" on it, nor is the description of the Sabanci family in that work remotely supportive of the claim made.
The RfC determined that the most that could be added to that article which impacts living persons was "His business grew, in part, due to reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide."
Opinions on this maluse of a source which does not make the claim made, explicitly nor implicitly? Collect ( talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"There is consensus for the alternative proposal: "Omer Sabanci, the progenitor of the Sabancı family, moved from his native Kayseri to Adana in the early 1920s. His business grew, in part, due to reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide."
Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"In 2003 Turkey exported 200,000 bales of cotton. Although it would be quite hard to calculate exactly what percentage of this production was generated on fields confiscated from Armenians, we might get an idea of the level of economic development from one, famous example.
The Sabanci family is Turkey's modern rags-to-riches success story. Its patriarch, Hacı Ömer Sabancı (1906–1966), began working as a cotton picker in Adana. Later he became a broker for cotton harvesters and entered the cotton trade. In 1932 Sabancı became a co-owner of a cotton spinning plant, and his success took off from there. He established a cotton ginning mill in 1950. The Sabancı Holding was established in 1966 and moved from Adana to Istanbul in 1974. Nowadays, the holding is the largest firm in Turkey. It operates in 15 countries, employs 60,000 people, owns a university, 70 leading companies and has many joint ventures with large western firms. Its revenue in 2008 was US$20,000 billion, its net income in 2009 was US$3.2 billion. Moreover, Sabancı has continued to produce textiles, including cotton products. In 1971 it founded Teksa Cotton and Synthetic Yarn, Velvet Weaving and Finishing Inc., which in 1993 merged into Bossa. Bossa is one of the largest textile firms in Turkey; its revenue in 2009 was US$164.1 million.
These examples must stand for many Turkish entrepreneurs who benefitted from the Armenian Genocide either directly by CUP donations or indirectly from the economic void left by the elimination of Armenian competition."
Ugur Ungor, Mehmet Polatel: Confiscation and Destruction. The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property. Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. p. 132
"In the early 1920s, Haci Omer went to Adana, a relatively rich town in the cotton-gorwing region of Southern Anatolia, to seek his fortune. At that period, there were many workers from Kayseri who, like Haci Omer, were attracted by the opportunities provided by cotton farming and industry. Among them there were also rich merchants of Kayseri who had been led to Adana commercial and industrial establishments left idle after the emigration of their Greek and Armenian owners. Such takeovers were encouraged by the government, and those who had connections with the governments authorities could benefit greatly from these opportunities. Haci Omer was not an important man with such connections, but he benefitted from the same circumstances indirectly, through the ties of "fellow townsmenship" which can be very important in Turkey. Although he was too modest to be delegated a direct responsibility in the mission of indigenization of the economy, through acquaintanceship with families from Kayseri, he has taken some part in the takeover of old minority-run ventures in Adana."
Ayse Bugra: State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study. SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82
"Sabancı'nın ifadesiyle "Rum ve Ermenilerin çekilmesiyle iyice sönükleşmiş bulunan ekonomik hayatı" canlandırmak, hükümetin başlıca kaygısı idi. Bu dönem, hükümetin millî iktisat, "millî tüccâr, millî sanayici yetiştirme arayışlarında" bulunduğu dönemdir.
Halil İnalcık: State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2008. p. 156
Note The claim that is mode for the source is not supported directly by that source. The source (page 131 and not page 132) mentions the family as "rags to riches." The "these examples must stand for" is an insufficient hook for Armenian irredentism here. The book casts no claim that the Sabancis in any way acted improperly. Therefore adding "Armenian genocide", per WP:BLP is improper on its face. It is precisely like saying that Ford benefitted from the Holocaust because it now owns property once owned by victims of that genocide. As no source actually states that the Sabancis had any connection with the Armenian Genocide, tacking it into this BLP is improper. And the sentence about the Armenian Genocide is not contiguous to the sentences mentioning Sabanci. What the book argues, apparently, is that all Turks benefitted from the genocide, rather than stating that the Sabancis specifically benefitted. Wikipedia does not promote "conviction by catenation from two separate paragraphs". Collect ( talk) 22:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've done a bit of pruning in one article, Sultan Murad Division (see notes on talk page). Anyway, the most comprehensive source in that article seems to be this one, which appears to be decently written--but it's a blog, and I can't find names or affiliations, never mind an editorial board, haha. Is this really the quality of the sourcing in that area? There's also this, which I am tempted to dismiss at first glance. Drmies ( talk) 02:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
From Colin Humphreys:
In a review of Humphreys' book, theologian William R Telford points out that the non-astronomical parts of his argument are based on the assumption that the chronologies described in the New Testament are historical and based on eyewitness testimony, accepting unquestioned statements such as the "three different Passovers in John" and Matthew's statement that Jesus died at the ninth hour. He also notes that Humphreys uses some very dubious sources. In doing so, Telford says, Humphreys has built an argument upon unsound premises which "does violence to the nature of the biblical texts, whose mixture of fact and fiction, tradition and redaction, history and myth all make the rigid application of the scientific tool of astronomy to their putative data a misconstrued enterprise."<ref name="Telford">{{cite journal|last1=Telford|first1=William R.|title=Review of The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus|journal=The Journal of Theological Studies|date=2015|volume=66|issue=1|pages=371-376|doi=10.1093/jts/flv005|url=http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/02/27/jts.flv005|accessdate=29 April 2016}}</ref>
This is about [9]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plausible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sectarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sectarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.
— Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, HarperCollins ebooks, p. 36
All sources at Draft:Kristina Pimenova were dismissed as either not independent or unreliable (not sure which). The user declining submission looked at the article for only a few seconds. I'd appreciate some input. Lyrda ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
At Al-Dawayima massacre, 3 editors, each citing a different policy, are challenging the use of the only known translation of an article which is paraphrased and alluded in our text. The content is a link to that translation, not a use of it.
Jonathan Ofir, 'Barbarism by an educated and cultured people’ — Dawayima massacre was worse than Deir Yassin,' Mondoweiss February 7, 2016.
I.e. to me this is all WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ofir, is an Israeli classical musician, musical conductor, resident in Denmark where he conducts the Copenhagen soloists ensemble. He is multilingual, takes an interest in politics, and occasionally writes for Mondoweiss. There is not a jot or skerrick of evidence he tampers with the material he translates.
I'd appreciate neutral third party input. Nishidani ( talk) 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Is Games Research Network a reliable source? It is a blog but in on its About page, it claims to be a "multi-disciplinary research group for academics and professionals working on gaming and play". I'm wanting to reference the cite to support the Awards section for the page of Catan. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Meatsgains ( talk) 23:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been working on improving the sources for the article, as I posted at Talk:Bars and Melody#Reliable sources, but there are some that I don't know about. So I created a list there with some comments based upon some research about Digital Spy, Reveal (which now routes to Digital Spy), TellyMix, IMVdB, J-14, and Irish-charts.
The content from these sources is primarily about their discography, tours, a video release date, or shows that they've appeared on. Do you have any input about whether these are reliable sources or not? Thanks so much.— CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Ricardo canedo ( talk · contribs) is adding this as a genealogical source for Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've reverted him twice but each time he replaces it. I've also pointed to WP:RS and WP:VERIFY and asked him to come here and show how Brian Dreadon, who wrote this self-published book and writes on Sinclair blogs, meets our criteria. His first edit summary was "The work is not by the owner of the website, it is by a guest writer Brian Dreadon who has made much research in the Sinclair of Dryden family and their likely descendants the Dryden of Canons Ashby family", his second "Dreadon is reliable, he read at least two important books about the Sinclairs, The Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn by Father Hay and Saint-Clairs of the Isles by Roland St.Clair". I'm obviously not going to revert a third time and I obviously can't convince him. Perhaps if he sees that others agree he'll be convinced. It's a bit worrying that someone would use such a justification for using a source. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm convinced that Brian Dreadon is reliable and won't change my opinion on the subject but I would like to see other's opinions. Ricardo Canedo.
if they had been referenced/used as source material by an author... who would be considered reliable (published by a third party non-vanity publisher... we wouldn't care about their origin
if [some random thing had happened that has nothing to do with anything] we wouldn't care about their origin
Pardon my intrusion but it seems me that the reliability question can be sidestepped altogether if this information fails the due weight test which seems likely if this information can only be found in one or two obscure books published a few hundred years ago. ElKevbo ( talk) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we really have an editor who actually thinks "self-published" in the 19th century is the same as "self-published" in the 2010s? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
list of encountered pages |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I run lately a lot into cases like in this version of Nigel Scrutton. The problem I see are in this case references 10 and 11, which are to respectively a Google Scholar search for the subject, and a twitter feed. Here it is only 2, this sometimes amounts to a whole list of 5-6 'professional searches' and 'social networking feeds', which in my opinion do not support in any form what is written there. I have done generally a cleanup of the social networking feeds in those, but on this I also removed the google scholar search, as I feel that also that is inappropriate as a reference (and especially for the statements that they are used on). I will list some more examples here when I encounter them. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that refs 2, 3, 4 and 5 in oldid show a good example. This includes a Scopus search, a Google Scholar search, a Microsoft Academic Search and a Twitter feed. Those 'support' the statement "Nicholas José Talbot FRS FRSB (born 5 September 1965) is a Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Exeter.". The Google Scholar is also used to 'support' the statement "Fields: Molecular genetics; Plant pathology; Developmental biology" in the infobox, and similar in the prose for "Talbot's research investigates plant pathology and developmental biology". These are in this way not supporting these statements at all (or may get close to WP:OR - if you extract from the list of papers the general subjects and convey from that what his field of interest is ...). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a reliable source, yes? There is something about the web presence of this group that seems off to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
previous discussion from 2011 can be found here. I am very skeptical as to the reliability of the IBT. It seems most of the articles are poorly researched with little editing oversight. Often it is the content of other news sources re-packaged. I came across them while editing Walton_family, where they are used to source the (highly doubtful) claim the family owns 54% of Walmart. Reuters, which is a reliable source, says the ownership is roughly 50% [1]. This is just an example of course. I would like other editor's opinion, ideally a ruling of sorts. Thank you. -- Lommes ( talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all your opinions, but I was giving this article only as an example. I am less interested in the article as to the reliability of the IBTimes in general. Thank you.-- Lommes ( talk) 19:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I am developing an article which uses information from some Australia tabloid newspapers (including The Daily Telegraph (Australia), The Courier-Mail and The West Australian. However, after reading a few FA and GA candidates (such as this review), some users said that newspapers which publish in tabloid format can not be used as reliable sources for GA or FA articles. Is it true? Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 12:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Barron's (newspaper) is a very reputable US newspaper published in tabloid format. Before it ceased publication, The Christian Science Monitor was published in tabloid format. Felsic2 ( talk) 17:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Is TheWrap a sufficiently RS to support keeping an assertion about a Trump administration initiative coming "from writers such as Christopher Hooton at Independent commenting that Nazi Germany-era propaganda magazine Der Stürmer, which published crimes ostensibly committed by Jewish individuals." (Note that the source is not The Independent but, rather, a website called indy100.com.) This text is being repeatedly inserted at Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The child's father, Charles Lindbergh, used a "meat skewer" to slice open the child's face to identify the body via the teeth.
Per this discussion [17] on the article's talk page, I removed [18] the above content because the source is self-published [19]. Another editor (who happens to be the author of the book) has twice now restored it. Opinions requested. E Eng 03:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
An article Aaron Ozee now at AFD sourcing a "world record" to the website Record Setter. I looked to see if we has an article on "Record Setter" and found a half-dozen articles [20] using it as a source. Is this a WP:RS for "records"? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
As soon as you submit your record you'll receive an email with a link to your "Under Review" page where you can see your attempt and share it with friends. Our community and moderators will then review the record and it will be marked as approved, failed, or denied. Attempts are generally processed within 48 hours.
In the Teenage pregnancy article, under the subsection "Age gap in relationships", the Family Research Council is listed as an authoritative source on the issue. Considering their track record of unreliability on LGBT issues (the SPLC say they rely on "junk science"), should they be considered a reliable source at all, and should their research be considered accurate on issues outside of the LGBT community? HelgaStick ( talk) 16:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-story-about-a-japanese-man-crushed-to-death-1792986533 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's simple: if an otherwise reliable source publishes something that turns out to be inaccurate or even false, then the clarification that it is false is what prevails. We either detail the whole story (that something was published and then proved wrong), or silently skip it (if the whole thing did not generate much controversy in itself). Reliable does not infallible, all sources may be prone to mistakes. In fact, a reliable source that commits such a mistake would likely add an Erratum in their next issue, to clarify it. Cambalachero ( talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability.... Apparently up until 2014, DM journalists were not prohibited from using Wikipedia "as a sole source". That's frickin' scary. I mean, as Freedman said in the above-alluded to lecture. By the way, I found it. Cosmolearning doesn't have an excellent transcript like for Martin's New Testament series, but this sufficed; it's on YouTube here but I don't have the minute-and-second loc. The quote is
[The best libraries in Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries were not great, but they weren't terrible either.] This is not as if everything were-- well, [as of October 2011] I don't want to say Wikipedia either—if everything were like Wikipedia [in 2006], elementary and often wrong.Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
A new editor is inserting a fairly large volume of unreliably sourced material on the article censorship by Google. The improper text is based mostly to (1) opinion pieces (which are as a rule not citable for contentious characterizations or contested factual assertions); (2) primary and self-published sources that don't meet the requirements for use of such texts; and (3) citations to sources that may be reliable, but don't refer to "censorship" and are clearly out of scope of the article.
More eyeballs at the article — and comments at Talk:Censorship by Google#Unreliable sources / improper self-published sources / WP:SYNTH — would be welcome. -- Neutrality talk 19:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
(1) I'm not the one campaigning here; (2) you should keep that discussion in the talk page of the article, here we should only notify about the discussion. - Cilinhosan1 ( talk) 11:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I never said that posting here is canvassingNo, but you strongly implied it by linking to WP:CAN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
you should keep that discussion in the talk page of the article, here we should only notify about the discussionI would think Cilinhosan1 is under the (incorrect) impression that no content issues should be discussed at RSN. In that case, the link to WP:CAN was misguided but is not an aspersion. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
is sad to see an editor resorting to deceiving through data manipulation with the objective to unjustify the action of others. A friendly bit of advice. Don’t make accusations like this on a page frequented by admins. WP:AGF Objective3000 ( talk) 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
External links search: [https://en.wikipedia.org/?target=*.immihelp.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch]
Is immihelp.com to be considered a reliable source for immigration law type issues? It has a prominent disclaimer stating that it is not giving legal advice or opinions. There doesn't seem to be a named editorial staff or credentials. Most of it seems to run on anonymous advice given to people in their web forum. It may be an SEO operation. WHOIS ownership records are obscured but other online business ownership directories say Immihelp LLC is owned by two individuals in Texas whose names I do not recognize.
Examples of usage follow. Many of these references were inserted by a single editor or his employee.
Also calling JzG who deleted it:
It doesn't smell like a RS to me. - Bri ( talk) 01:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place,
I'm currently sourcing
Georgina Leonidas and one part states "she has another sister, Helena, who works as a teacher." - Should I use LinkedIn as a source or remove it entirely ?,
It feels wrong to add such a personal page as a cite but at the same time there are no other sources to confirm her being a teacher (or being her sister for that matter) so not sure what to do for the best, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
We have lots of pages that have such family information- true, and I think in 90%+ of the cases it should be removed as hardly relevant (and/or NPF violations). But as I said, I understand other people may disagree.
I have recently discovered
Studopedia (
http://studopedia.su), which has the
top-level domain (TLD)
.su (Soviet Union). My understanding of Russian is limited, but
Wikipedia:Local Embassy lists 11 Russian-speaking editors (
User:Abdullais4u,
User:Brandmeister,
User:Brateevsky,
User:Calaf,
User:Evgenior,
User:Maxim,
User:MaxSem,
User:Music1201,
User:Orthorhombic,
User:SkyBon,
User:Fenikals). Also,
Wikipedia:Translators available lists some of those as well as some others (
User:Daniel Case,
User:Halibutt,
User:Aleksmot,
User:Anthony Ivanoff,
User:BACbKA,
User:Interchange88,
User:Smack,
User:TMW,
User:VKokielov,
User:XJaM). Is Studopedia a reliable source for Wikipedia editors?
—
Wavelength (
talk) 16:03, 8 March 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.
In the context of Black Lives Matter, I'm wondering about the reliability and notability of the following sources.
http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2017/02/11/22703425.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/black-lives-matter-toronto-yusra-khogali_b_14635896.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/black-lives-matter-toronto_b_14736160.html
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/06/banish-blmto-to-the-fringes-where-it-belongs
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/13/black-lives-matter-leader-white-people-are-sub-human/
http://www.ibtimes.com/black-lives-matter-most-controversial-quotes-statements-2492936
http://info-direkt.eu/2017/02/14/black-lives-matter-mitgruenderin-nennt-weisse-untermenschen/
Benjamin ( talk) 15:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
info-direkt.eu
, but
WOT Services tells me it may be in the same boat as *The Daily Caller*.If you're looking for us to rubber stamp the entire list as reliable (or not), you're going about this the wrong way. If you want a useful response, you need to tell us what you want to use these sources for specifically. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
As a whole, these particular stories don’t read the way you would like reliable sources to sound. I would be more comfortable with a Toronto broadsheet paper, or HuffPo non-blog area. If you can’t find such stories in a more respected paper; ask yourself why not. But, as said above, context matters. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more specific. Something along the lines of:
The co-founder of the Toronto Black Lives Matter chapter has (allegedly?) called white people sub human and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “white supremacist terrorist,”
Help rewording as appropriate is welcome.
Perhaps this is a discussion for the article talk page, but I just want to make sure that these sources are at least good enough for something before proceeding.
Benjamin ( talk) 10:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
First of all, this stems from Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. My POV is that the removal of "not-approved" sources from articles without specific use case reasoning is a case of Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd like consensus on this if y'all deem it worthy. However, if y'all choose to continue in a blanket manner approve or deny specific sources then, in my POV, we should have a publicly available list that links each source to an open debate about the reliability of said source as well as archived discussions. I hold this POV because I don't believe in Argument from authority or Argumentum ad populum or fixing things that aren't broken. As it currently stands we are using a logical fallacy as policy and are therefore broken. Every use of a source that isn't "approved" is a challenge to consensus because the editor that used it obviously thought that it was reliable enough for use in that specific use case. Therefore, not having an open discussion while also removing sources violates WP:NPV and challenges the use of consensus as an administrative tool.
TLDR: In order to rectify argument from authority I suggest the use of a list of talked about sources that links to open discussion and displays current measured consensus. If this is already semi-officially in place please let me know where so I can move there. Thank you for your time Endercase ( talk) 13:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow that is low.What is low?
First, you interrogate me on my talk page where I responded honestly and respectfullyOkay, that definitely is not what happened. However one interprets our interaction on that page, "honestly and respectfully" is not accurate. You dodged my question and kept going off on tangents about Donald Trump and the like, and you kept accusing me of getting angry.
and now thisIt's pretty clear from the rest of your comment that you don't know what "this" is, so I'm not going to bother asking.
I honestly believe what I have put here.I don't care what you put here; my comment was about what you didn't put here.
This is not a red herring of any sort.Read my comment again. I didn't say anything about red herrings.
It is meta discussion about the behavior of users on Wikipedia.It's considered extremely impolite to talk about other users without notifying or naming them, so if that is what you were doing it is wrong.
I noticed a problem due to the interactions at Stealth banning and chose to address it directly.So, you admit that part of your motivation for opening this discussion was related to the Stealth banning article? Because the whole point of my posting the above was to point out that this was apparently your motivation, but for whatever reason you had not mentioned it. "Ctrl+F" the word "stealth" and you will see that you didn't mention it here until after I pointed out that you probably should have.
There is nothing fallacious about it at all.If you claim that other editors are trying to prevent you from citing a source that, yes, should never be cited under almost any circumstances anywhere on the encyclopedia, but word it so that your opponents look like the ones violating policy and making up fake rules, that is indeed fallacious.
Additionally, your comment disrespects all users who have interacted with me here in a clear and honest manner suggesting that they couldn't recognize tomfoolery when they saw it.No, it would have been disrespecting them if called them all idiots for assuming good faith on your initial comment. I came across this thread because I saw your comments elsewhere on this noticeboard and noticed that they all seemed to be wrong, so I checked your contribs and noticed that your main reason for coming to this noticeboard seemed to be to open this discussion, as well as the fact that this discussion was misrepresented as being about Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva when it seemed to be more relevant to Talk:Stealth banning (a page you have edited four times as often). You also forum-shopped the same dispute to NPOVN, and then apparently started making the same unhelpful comments in numerous threads over there as well (although I am not as familiar with how NPOVN works as here; it's possible comments like
making factual lists [of cherry-picked crimes committed by Muslims] is not POV,
major edits should only be made by signed in users. You could get them for that probably,
from what I've seen we shouldn't do anything. just try not to attack their free speech too[Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech],
it could also mean that the user has Autism spectrum disorder,
I feel like calling a "disorder" a derogatory term is actually kinda offensive... only look disruptive to me). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
No, but I think that we should not single out the mail for special attention, the Mirror needs to be banned as well. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh my, I posted this in the wrong location. It belongs on the talk page for Reliable sources, not the Noticeboard. As the Noticeboard is for discussions on particular sources and is definitely not for meta. I do not know what to do about this. Endercase ( talk) 20:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
If you've the time, would very much appreciate opinions on this RfC on Napoleon Hill talk. There was an RSN post here a while back but that did not get resolved. The article is not high traffic, so even with the bot notices, which should be going out soon, it might not garner much attention. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm running into a bit of the problem at Modest Mouse discography § Singles. I'm trying to find a source to back up the claim that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fishermen" were B-sides to the "Birds vs. Worms" single, but unfortunately, information has been scarce due to the single's rarity, with the overwhelming majority of pages I have visited mentioning the "Birds vs. Worms" single while leaving no mention of the B-sides. The best I've been able to find are the single's entries on Discogs and Rateyourmusic (which I already know are not reliable sources), and photographs of side B of the 7-inch single, as seen on Discogs, eBay, and Amazon (note: B-side label appears rotated 90° counter-clockwise). Could the B-side label of the single be used as a source to verify that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fishermen" were the B-sides for this release? While I'm leaning "no," it would be nice to get either confirmation or invalidation of my skepticism; that way, I can know whether or not to remove mention of the B-sides from the Modest Mouse discography here on Wikipedia. -- Dylan620 ( I'm all ears) 00:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Although previously discussed here (thread started by @ The Land, with the only comment from @ Someguy1221 which I replied to, no major issues were raised), @ Nikkimaria removed the Daily Mail references from Snugburys, either deleting the referenced content or tagging it with citation needed. I've since reverted it (twice) as I don't think the removal of these references is warranted, and some discussion has started on the talk page. Additional viewpoints on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 00:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we shift this discussion towards the practicalities of cleaning up uses of the DM. I think this is actually a bit better than a couple of years ago when we were discussing the DM, when I did a random check and found inappropriate Mail-sourced gossip on a celebrity BLP. Now when I search for articles containing "mailonline" the first one I find is about a Daily Mail journalist, Laura Topham. I think we can all agree that this use is appropriate? The next one I find is Maddox Gallery, which is tagged for multiple issues including notability. I don't personally have a problem with notability because there are references to huffpost entertainment and CBS. Here, the Mail is used for the artists who have displayed their work, but not to Mail reviewer's opinion might arguably be usable, rather to archetypal celebrity tittle-tattle, an article entitled "Starting her young! Tamara Ecclestone cuts a chic figure in tailored jacket and thigh-high boots as she and daughter Sophia shop for pricey artwork". Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Source: Popbitch
Article: WER v REW
Content: Mr Hutcheson gained an injunction but it was later partially lifted. [1]
Submitted by -- David Tornheim ( talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah man, I thought the point of arguing was to come to a mutuality agreeable outcome and to exchange ideas.Read Argument, then. Or watch the way people argue in real life. Or watch some formal debates (IQ2 is a great series of them). Or get into an argument. Coming to a mutually agreeable outcome is desirable, but saying that's the point of arguing is like saying the point of having kids is to become the parent of a successful, happy person. It's just nonsensical.
And not to make the other person look bad by attacking their argument in an ad hominem...Read Straw man argument while you're at it, because that's what you're doing here. Also read ad hominem because if you think you can attack an argument with an ad hominem, then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Indeed, I've been trying to explain to you how to argue in a way that avoids ad hominems (which are usually fallacies), meanwhile you're presenting me with a situation in which an ad hominem argument would not be fallacious (it would, instead be a statistical syllogism), which is rather ironic and amusing if you think about it.
I guess that's the danger of using populism and voting to manage an information database instead of debate, discussion, sources, and consensus.Remember what I said in my last comment? Well this is one of those ignorant, ridiculous arguments it's acceptable to criticize. The reason it's so ignorant is because it ignores the fundamental definition of an argument, which is a statement that it intended to convince someone of something, which expounds into what I've said earlier, and results in discussion and consensus. It's also ignorant because it's made clear numerous times on WP that consensus is not a vote, that wikipedia runs on consensus, that our policies prohibit the devolvement of arguments into fights (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), and generally prohibit ad hominem arguments except in very specific circumstances. It's ridiculous because it's founded in an ignorance of a number of basic facts, yet it is still asserted with conviction in an obvious display of sarcasm, as if it were obvious that it was true.
In Ghostbusters (2016), RedLettermedia, a video production organization, is referenced:
RedLetterMedia analyzed the YouTube comments and found that in a random sampling of 1000 comments, only 60 were negative about women and only 2.5% of total viewers voted dislike. RLM and others also reported Sony did delete criticism, while letting grossly sexist, derogatory or "trolling" comments be, leading to "misogynistic" comments misrepresenting overall criticism of the quality of the movie which, however, made it "bomb" in revenues.[122]
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ghostbusters_(2016_film)&oldid=769813693
I can't find any other page that uses RedLetterMedia as a source of these sorts of statistical claims, and given the problematic nature of unobservable claims of what constitutes a random sample, it seems worrisome to rely on that source. cshirky ( talk) 22:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
On March 9, 2017, from BuzzFeed News reported here that "BuzzFeed News spoke with more than half a dozen officials involved with the committee’s investigation, both Democrats and Republicans. All the officials requested anonymity to more openly discuss the sensitive investigation." and "Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence." Why would this not be considered reliable? Humanengr ( talk) 06:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Herostratus and Steve Quinn: Re the author: Per [28]: "BuzzFeed today will announce … additions to its foreign reporting staff, continuing a build-out that started in mid-2013. … Watkins shared a finalist designation in Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture." Per [29]: "The Huffington Post announced Wednesday that Ali Watkins will join its DC bureau as a political reporter. The 2014 Temple grad’s name may ring as bell. As an intern for McClatchy this past Spring, she was part of the team that broke the story that the CIA spied on computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee."( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/ali-watkins) Per https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins: "Ali Watkins is a national security correspondent for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, D.C." Humanengr ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Herostratus: More than one data point re Ali Watkins: 1) breaking the story that the CIA spied on computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee, 2) HuffPo Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim: “We knew Ali would be a fantastic hire back when she was a college senior and worked on the McClatchy team that broke the news that the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee over the panel’s torture report.” On WP, September 11 attacks cites her 9/3/2013 McClatchy "Senate intelligence panel could seek to declassify documents; it just doesn’t”; Fake news website cites her 11/30/2016 BuzzFeed "Intel Officials Believe Russia Spreads Fake News” in 7 places; Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board cites her McClatchy 11/2013 "NSA Cites stop and frisk”. "It does not mean 'this person is incapable of making a mistake or shading the truth" seems out of place. Humanengr ( talk) 05:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It might be good to move the WP:WEIGHT / UNDUE discussion to the article talk thread at this point? SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Someguy1221, Herostratus, Steve Quinn, N-HH, Masem, Slatersteven, Blueboar, The Four Deuces, SPECIFICO, Thucydides411, and NPalgan2: Maybe we should try this again. Ali Watkins reported the story. The 'Nominated work' submitted to Pulitzer included 10 stories, several of which contained verbiage such as "Like all of those who spoke to McClatchy, the federal official requested anonymity because the case is highly sensitive, closely guarded and could potentially involve criminal charges." Ali Watkins was a Pulitzer finalist "For timely coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture, demonstrating initiative and perseverance in overcoming government efforts to hide the details.” On what basis does anyone still care to voice an objection to reverting the revert or, alternatively, delete most if not all of this article (in line with Masem’s suggestion)? Humanengr ( talk)
Hi, I'm reviewing mafia boss Giosue Gallucci for Good Article and came across GangRule.com. It contains information about organized crime groups (mostly the Italian mafia) in the United States. It has biographies, events, photographs, family charts, etc. It claims to use a list of sources here, but sometimes the articles just state information without letting the reader where exactly where the information was used. It seems to have a lot of information and a huge source of information for some of our Italian mafia articles. Thank you, and let me know if you have any questions. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
See for previous discussions on student newspapers here and here. I would like to discuss The Orion, the student newspaper of California State University, Chico. The paper is around since 1975. This web-page gives a long list of awards won, and the paper's mission statement which says that "The Orion’s goal is to build journalistic excellence at Chico State by striving to inspire our readers to think critically, with complete, accurate and unbiased journalism." Still, an opinion piece on the Orion's site was removed as source from an "External views"-section since " student papers are not reliable sources." Was that done correctly? Or could an opinion on a student-newspaper-site be regarded as reliable as an external view? Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am not convinced by any of the references in this article, nor by internet searching. I proposed deletion, but someone has objected.
I'd like further opinions on the sourcing.
Here is my PROD reasoning;
This case does not seem notable. Except one small newspaper reference to the missing person, none of the sources are reliable. Blogs, facebook, and 'mystery sites' do not establish notability. I can find no hard information about this in mainstream media; it even says "oddly by the end of October, only one week after being printed in the newspapers, the story had largely died down" - referenced to a facebook group. Even if a person of this name did 'disappear', it doesn't seem worthy of an article, with so little information in RS. It seems possible this is partly, or mostly, an 'urban legend' story.
Thanks. 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 15:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Gomolo.com describes itself as "Gomolo is the IMDb for Indian movies". Since IMDb is considered a non RS in most cases, is this any different? Same problems exist: their movie synopses don't seem to have an editorial credit, do we have evidence of a complete and correct compilation here?
An example of its use is this: it is the sole source for Albela (1971 film). - Bri ( talk) 16:46, 15 March 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 220 | Archive 221 | Archive 222 | Archive 223 | Archive 224 | Archive 225 |
From List of Chinese teas article:
Is the following section reliably sourced? There is a main section and two subsections, which I have converted to bold and noted below.
There are several opinions of the best Chinese teas, or the title China's Famous Teas (中国名茶) or Ten Great Chinese Teas (中国十大名茶), depending on current trends in Chinese tea, as well as the region and tastes of the person.
Different sources cite different teas, but the following table compiles ten different such lists and ranks the teas upon recurrence. [1]
Translated English name | Chinese | Pronunciation | Place of origin | Type | Occurrences | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | West Lake Dragon Well | 西湖龙井 | Xī Hú Lóng Jǐng | Hangzhou, Zhejiang | Green tea | 10 |
2 | Dongting Green Snail Spring | 洞庭碧螺春 | Dòng Tíng Bì Luó Chūn | Suzhou, Jiangsu | Green tea | 10 |
3 | Yellow Mountain Fur Peak | 黄山毛峰 | Huáng shān Máo Fēng | Huang Shan, Anhui | Green tea | 10 |
4 | Mount Jun Silver Needle | 君山银针 | Jūn shān Yín Zhēn | Yueyang, Hunan | Yellow tea | 10 |
5 | Qimen Red | 祁门红茶 | Qí Mén Hóng Chá | Qimen, Anhui | Black tea | 10 |
6 | Wuyi Big Red Robe | 武夷大紅袍 | Wǔ Yí Dà Hóng Páo | Wuyi Mountains, Fujian | Oolong tea | 10 |
7 | Lu'an Melon Seed | 六安瓜片 | Lù ān Guā Piàn | Lu'an, Anhui | Green tea | 10 |
8 | Anxi Iron Goddess | 安溪铁观音 | Ān xī Tiě Guān Yīn | Anxi, Fujian | Oolong tea | 10 |
9 | Taiping Houkui | 太平猴魁 | Tài Píng Hóu Kuí | Huang Shan, Anhui | Green tea | 10 |
10 | Xinyang Fur Tip | 信阳毛尖 | Xìn yáng Máo Jiān | Xinyang, Henan | Green tea | 9 |
The following table compiles twenty different such lists and ranks the teas upon recurrence. [2]
Translated English name | Chinese | Pronunciation | Place of origin | Type | Occurrences | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | West Lake Dragon Well | 西湖龙井 | Xī Hú Lóng Jǐng | Hangzhou, Zhejiang | Green tea | 20 |
2 | Dongting Green Snail Spring | 洞庭碧螺春 | Dòng Tíng Bì Luó Chūn | Suzhou, Jiangsu | Green tea | 20 |
3 | Anxi Iron Goddess | 安溪铁观音 | Ān xī Tiě Guān Yīn | Anxi, Fujian | Oolong tea | 18 |
4 | Yellow Mountain Fur Peak | 黄山毛峰 | Huáng shān Máo Fēng | Huang Shan, Anhui | Green tea | 17 |
5 | Mount Jun Silver Needle | 君山银针 | Jūn shān Yín Zhēn | Yueyang, Hunan | Yellow tea | 14 |
6 | Qimen Red | 祁门红茶 | Qí Mén Hóng Chá | Qimen, Anhui | Black tea | 12 |
7 | Wuyi Big Red Robe | 武夷大紅袍 | Wǔ Yí Dà Hóng Páo | Wuyi Mountains, Fujian | Oolong tea | 11 |
8 | Lu'an Melon Seed | 六安瓜片 | Lù ān Guā Piàn | Lu'an, Anhui | Green tea | 11 |
9 | White Fur Silver Needle | 白毫银针 | Bái Háo Yín Zhēn | Fuding, Fujian | White tea | 10 |
10 | Yunnan Pu-erh | 云南普洱 | Yúnnán Pǔ'ěr Chá | Simao, Yunnan | Post-fermented tea | 10 |
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 19:47, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
Two sources are being disputed in the article on chiropractic (talk page here). I'm listing them together because they are directly related, and support the same conclusion. One of the sources being disputed is a clinical practice guideline from the Canadian Chiropractic Association on the effectiveness of chiropractic manipulation for treatment of different lower extremity issues here, full-text here. The second source is an update of that review, which further expanded the search database, including additional articles and came to the same conclusion here, full-text here.
The statement the studies are being used to support is
[There is] limited or fair evidence supporting chiropractic management of leg conditions.
To see it in context you can see the diff here.
Jmg873 ( talk) 15:55, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
With the possible exception of back pain, chiropractic spinal manipulation has not been shown to be effective for any medical condition.
these data fail to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition.
"Ernst et al.’s publication on chiropractic include repeated misuse of references, misleading statements, highly selective use of certain published papers, failure to refer to relevant literature, inaccurate reporting of the contents of published work, and errors in citation. Meticulous analysis of some influential negative reviews has been carried out to determine the objectivity of the data reported. The misrepresentation that became evident deserves full debate and raises serious questions about the integrity of the peer-review process and the nature of academic misconduct." [2] full-text
"The number of errors or omissions in the 2007 Ernst paper, reduce the validity of the study and the reported conclusions." [3]
"In the April 2006 issue of the Journal of Royal Society of Medicine, Ernst and Canter authored a review of the most recent systematic reviews on the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for any condition. The authors concluded that, except for back pain, spinal manipulation is not an effective intervention for any condition and, because of potential side effects, cannot be recommended for use at all in clinical practice. Based on a critical appraisal of their review, the authors of this commentary seriously challenge the conclusions by Ernst and Canter, who did not adhere to standard systematic review methodology, thus threatening the validity of their conclusions. There was no systematic assessment of the literature pertaining to the hazards of manipulation, including comparison to other therapies. Hence, their claim that the risks of manipulation outweigh the benefits, and thus spinal manipulation cannot be recommended as treatment for any condition, was not supported by the data analyzed. Their conclusions are misleading and not based on evidence that allow discrediting of a large body of professionals using spinal manipulation." [4]
There are different ways to rank level of evidence in medicine, but they similarly put high level reviews and practice guidelines at the top.Despite that, here we are discussing whether or not a practice guideline should be considered a reliable source. I don't view these as active suppression, but I also don't consider them normal. I'm not attacking the concept of independent review. You brought up Cochrane. I have a huge amount of respect for Cochrane and other agencies performing similar work. I think Cochrane is conservative in their findings (in general, not solely in regard to chiropratic), but they apply an equal lens to everything they examine. I don't take issue with Ernst merely because I don't like his conclusions, some of Cochrane's conclusions aren't what I want, but that doesn't make them wrong. I take issue with Ernst because his work has too many inconsistencies to be considered reliable (as quoted/cited above). Plenty of research finds no effect for chiropractic for a variety of issues, and there's nothing wrong with that. The practical application of mobilization/manipulation is very limited, but the research that exists supports a statement of "limited or fair evidence for leg conditions". The conditions themselves are outlined in the papers, if you'd rather have each condition explicitly stated with it's corresponding grade of evidence rather than summarized as "leg conditions", I'd be fine with that too.
[5] to Sabancı family is being edit-warred into position. There was an RfC back in 2014 which disposed of this, but the sad truth is that the source is not valid for the claim being made.
clearly is an edit intended to place culpability for that on this family. The 2014 RfC came down against that claim, and the claim is WP:OR
The source is "Ungor, Ugur; Polatel, Mehmet (2011). Confiscation and Destruction: The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property. A&C Black. p. 132." "Sabanci" is not on page 132, nor is "Sabanci" found on any page with the word "genocide" on it, nor is the description of the Sabanci family in that work remotely supportive of the claim made.
The RfC determined that the most that could be added to that article which impacts living persons was "His business grew, in part, due to reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide."
Opinions on this maluse of a source which does not make the claim made, explicitly nor implicitly? Collect ( talk) 18:50, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"There is consensus for the alternative proposal: "Omer Sabanci, the progenitor of the Sabancı family, moved from his native Kayseri to Adana in the early 1920s. His business grew, in part, due to reduced business competition as a result of the Armenian Genocide."
Étienne Dolet ( talk) 19:01, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
"In 2003 Turkey exported 200,000 bales of cotton. Although it would be quite hard to calculate exactly what percentage of this production was generated on fields confiscated from Armenians, we might get an idea of the level of economic development from one, famous example.
The Sabanci family is Turkey's modern rags-to-riches success story. Its patriarch, Hacı Ömer Sabancı (1906–1966), began working as a cotton picker in Adana. Later he became a broker for cotton harvesters and entered the cotton trade. In 1932 Sabancı became a co-owner of a cotton spinning plant, and his success took off from there. He established a cotton ginning mill in 1950. The Sabancı Holding was established in 1966 and moved from Adana to Istanbul in 1974. Nowadays, the holding is the largest firm in Turkey. It operates in 15 countries, employs 60,000 people, owns a university, 70 leading companies and has many joint ventures with large western firms. Its revenue in 2008 was US$20,000 billion, its net income in 2009 was US$3.2 billion. Moreover, Sabancı has continued to produce textiles, including cotton products. In 1971 it founded Teksa Cotton and Synthetic Yarn, Velvet Weaving and Finishing Inc., which in 1993 merged into Bossa. Bossa is one of the largest textile firms in Turkey; its revenue in 2009 was US$164.1 million.
These examples must stand for many Turkish entrepreneurs who benefitted from the Armenian Genocide either directly by CUP donations or indirectly from the economic void left by the elimination of Armenian competition."
Ugur Ungor, Mehmet Polatel: Confiscation and Destruction. The Young Turk Seizure of Armenian Property. Bloomsbury Academic, 2011. p. 132
"In the early 1920s, Haci Omer went to Adana, a relatively rich town in the cotton-gorwing region of Southern Anatolia, to seek his fortune. At that period, there were many workers from Kayseri who, like Haci Omer, were attracted by the opportunities provided by cotton farming and industry. Among them there were also rich merchants of Kayseri who had been led to Adana commercial and industrial establishments left idle after the emigration of their Greek and Armenian owners. Such takeovers were encouraged by the government, and those who had connections with the governments authorities could benefit greatly from these opportunities. Haci Omer was not an important man with such connections, but he benefitted from the same circumstances indirectly, through the ties of "fellow townsmenship" which can be very important in Turkey. Although he was too modest to be delegated a direct responsibility in the mission of indigenization of the economy, through acquaintanceship with families from Kayseri, he has taken some part in the takeover of old minority-run ventures in Adana."
Ayse Bugra: State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study. SUNY Press, 1994. p. 82
"Sabancı'nın ifadesiyle "Rum ve Ermenilerin çekilmesiyle iyice sönükleşmiş bulunan ekonomik hayatı" canlandırmak, hükümetin başlıca kaygısı idi. Bu dönem, hükümetin millî iktisat, "millî tüccâr, millî sanayici yetiştirme arayışlarında" bulunduğu dönemdir.
Halil İnalcık: State and Business in Modern Turkey. A Comparative Study. Türkiye İş Bankası Kültür Yayınları, 2008. p. 156
Note The claim that is mode for the source is not supported directly by that source. The source (page 131 and not page 132) mentions the family as "rags to riches." The "these examples must stand for" is an insufficient hook for Armenian irredentism here. The book casts no claim that the Sabancis in any way acted improperly. Therefore adding "Armenian genocide", per WP:BLP is improper on its face. It is precisely like saying that Ford benefitted from the Holocaust because it now owns property once owned by victims of that genocide. As no source actually states that the Sabancis had any connection with the Armenian Genocide, tacking it into this BLP is improper. And the sentence about the Armenian Genocide is not contiguous to the sentences mentioning Sabanci. What the book argues, apparently, is that all Turks benefitted from the genocide, rather than stating that the Sabancis specifically benefitted. Wikipedia does not promote "conviction by catenation from two separate paragraphs". Collect ( talk) 22:06, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
I've done a bit of pruning in one article, Sultan Murad Division (see notes on talk page). Anyway, the most comprehensive source in that article seems to be this one, which appears to be decently written--but it's a blog, and I can't find names or affiliations, never mind an editorial board, haha. Is this really the quality of the sourcing in that area? There's also this, which I am tempted to dismiss at first glance. Drmies ( talk) 02:27, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
From Colin Humphreys:
In a review of Humphreys' book, theologian William R Telford points out that the non-astronomical parts of his argument are based on the assumption that the chronologies described in the New Testament are historical and based on eyewitness testimony, accepting unquestioned statements such as the "three different Passovers in John" and Matthew's statement that Jesus died at the ninth hour. He also notes that Humphreys uses some very dubious sources. In doing so, Telford says, Humphreys has built an argument upon unsound premises which "does violence to the nature of the biblical texts, whose mixture of fact and fiction, tradition and redaction, history and myth all make the rigid application of the scientific tool of astronomy to their putative data a misconstrued enterprise."<ref name="Telford">{{cite journal|last1=Telford|first1=William R.|title=Review of The Mystery of the Last Supper: Reconstructing the Final Days of Jesus|journal=The Journal of Theological Studies|date=2015|volume=66|issue=1|pages=371-376|doi=10.1093/jts/flv005|url=http://jts.oxfordjournals.org/content/early/2015/02/27/jts.flv005|accessdate=29 April 2016}}</ref>
This is about [9]. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 15:12, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
Some scholars have argued that we have this difference between the Gospels because different Jews celebrated Passover on different days of the week. This is one of those explanations that sounds plausible until you dig a bit and think a bit more. It is true that some sectarian groups not connected with the Temple in Jerusalem thought that the Temple authorities followed an incorrect calendar. But in both Mark and John, Jesus is not outside Jerusalem with some sectarian group of Jews: he is in Jerusalem, where the lambs are being slaughtered. And in Jerusalem, there was only one day of Passover a year. The Jerusalem priests did not accommodate the calendrical oddities of a few sectarian fringe groups.
— Bart D. Ehrman, Jesus, Interrupted, HarperCollins ebooks, p. 36
All sources at Draft:Kristina Pimenova were dismissed as either not independent or unreliable (not sure which). The user declining submission looked at the article for only a few seconds. I'd appreciate some input. Lyrda ( talk) 16:54, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
At Al-Dawayima massacre, 3 editors, each citing a different policy, are challenging the use of the only known translation of an article which is paraphrased and alluded in our text. The content is a link to that translation, not a use of it.
Jonathan Ofir, 'Barbarism by an educated and cultured people’ — Dawayima massacre was worse than Deir Yassin,' Mondoweiss February 7, 2016.
I.e. to me this is all WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Ofir, is an Israeli classical musician, musical conductor, resident in Denmark where he conducts the Copenhagen soloists ensemble. He is multilingual, takes an interest in politics, and occasionally writes for Mondoweiss. There is not a jot or skerrick of evidence he tampers with the material he translates.
I'd appreciate neutral third party input. Nishidani ( talk) 16:57, 26 February 2017 (UTC)
Is Games Research Network a reliable source? It is a blog but in on its About page, it claims to be a "multi-disciplinary research group for academics and professionals working on gaming and play". I'm wanting to reference the cite to support the Awards section for the page of Catan. Any feedback is appreciated. Thanks! Meatsgains ( talk) 23:19, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I have been working on improving the sources for the article, as I posted at Talk:Bars and Melody#Reliable sources, but there are some that I don't know about. So I created a list there with some comments based upon some research about Digital Spy, Reveal (which now routes to Digital Spy), TellyMix, IMVdB, J-14, and Irish-charts.
The content from these sources is primarily about their discography, tours, a video release date, or shows that they've appeared on. Do you have any input about whether these are reliable sources or not? Thanks so much.— CaroleHenson (talk) 23:49, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
Ricardo canedo ( talk · contribs) is adding this as a genealogical source for Henry I Sinclair, Earl of Orkney ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). I've reverted him twice but each time he replaces it. I've also pointed to WP:RS and WP:VERIFY and asked him to come here and show how Brian Dreadon, who wrote this self-published book and writes on Sinclair blogs, meets our criteria. His first edit summary was "The work is not by the owner of the website, it is by a guest writer Brian Dreadon who has made much research in the Sinclair of Dryden family and their likely descendants the Dryden of Canons Ashby family", his second "Dreadon is reliable, he read at least two important books about the Sinclairs, The Genealogie of the Saintclaires of Rosslyn by Father Hay and Saint-Clairs of the Isles by Roland St.Clair". I'm obviously not going to revert a third time and I obviously can't convince him. Perhaps if he sees that others agree he'll be convinced. It's a bit worrying that someone would use such a justification for using a source. Doug Weller talk 19:34, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
I'm convinced that Brian Dreadon is reliable and won't change my opinion on the subject but I would like to see other's opinions. Ricardo Canedo.
if they had been referenced/used as source material by an author... who would be considered reliable (published by a third party non-vanity publisher... we wouldn't care about their origin
if [some random thing had happened that has nothing to do with anything] we wouldn't care about their origin
Pardon my intrusion but it seems me that the reliability question can be sidestepped altogether if this information fails the due weight test which seems likely if this information can only be found in one or two obscure books published a few hundred years ago. ElKevbo ( talk) 17:39, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
Do we really have an editor who actually thinks "self-published" in the 19th century is the same as "self-published" in the 2010s? Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
list of encountered pages |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
I run lately a lot into cases like in this version of Nigel Scrutton. The problem I see are in this case references 10 and 11, which are to respectively a Google Scholar search for the subject, and a twitter feed. Here it is only 2, this sometimes amounts to a whole list of 5-6 'professional searches' and 'social networking feeds', which in my opinion do not support in any form what is written there. I have done generally a cleanup of the social networking feeds in those, but on this I also removed the google scholar search, as I feel that also that is inappropriate as a reference (and especially for the statements that they are used on). I will list some more examples here when I encounter them. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I think that refs 2, 3, 4 and 5 in oldid show a good example. This includes a Scopus search, a Google Scholar search, a Microsoft Academic Search and a Twitter feed. Those 'support' the statement "Nicholas José Talbot FRS FRSB (born 5 September 1965) is a Professor of Molecular Genetics at the University of Exeter.". The Google Scholar is also used to 'support' the statement "Fields: Molecular genetics; Plant pathology; Developmental biology" in the infobox, and similar in the prose for "Talbot's research investigates plant pathology and developmental biology". These are in this way not supporting these statements at all (or may get close to WP:OR - if you extract from the list of papers the general subjects and convey from that what his field of interest is ...). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:02, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
This is a reliable source, yes? There is something about the web presence of this group that seems off to me. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 20:16, 1 March 2017 (UTC)
previous discussion from 2011 can be found here. I am very skeptical as to the reliability of the IBT. It seems most of the articles are poorly researched with little editing oversight. Often it is the content of other news sources re-packaged. I came across them while editing Walton_family, where they are used to source the (highly doubtful) claim the family owns 54% of Walmart. Reuters, which is a reliable source, says the ownership is roughly 50% [1]. This is just an example of course. I would like other editor's opinion, ideally a ruling of sorts. Thank you. -- Lommes ( talk) 23:53, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
Thank you for all your opinions, but I was giving this article only as an example. I am less interested in the article as to the reliability of the IBTimes in general. Thank you.-- Lommes ( talk) 19:15, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
I am developing an article which uses information from some Australia tabloid newspapers (including The Daily Telegraph (Australia), The Courier-Mail and The West Australian. However, after reading a few FA and GA candidates (such as this review), some users said that newspapers which publish in tabloid format can not be used as reliable sources for GA or FA articles. Is it true? Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 12:03, 4 March 2017 (UTC)
FWIW, Barron's (newspaper) is a very reputable US newspaper published in tabloid format. Before it ceased publication, The Christian Science Monitor was published in tabloid format. Felsic2 ( talk) 17:26, 7 March 2017 (UTC)
Is TheWrap a sufficiently RS to support keeping an assertion about a Trump administration initiative coming "from writers such as Christopher Hooton at Independent commenting that Nazi Germany-era propaganda magazine Der Stürmer, which published crimes ostensibly committed by Jewish individuals." (Note that the source is not The Independent but, rather, a website called indy100.com.) This text is being repeatedly inserted at Office of Victims of Immigration Crime Engagement. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 20:58, 2 March 2017 (UTC)
The child's father, Charles Lindbergh, used a "meat skewer" to slice open the child's face to identify the body via the teeth.
Per this discussion [17] on the article's talk page, I removed [18] the above content because the source is self-published [19]. Another editor (who happens to be the author of the book) has twice now restored it. Opinions requested. E Eng 03:08, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
An article Aaron Ozee now at AFD sourcing a "world record" to the website Record Setter. I looked to see if we has an article on "Record Setter" and found a half-dozen articles [20] using it as a source. Is this a WP:RS for "records"? E.M.Gregory ( talk) 12:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
As soon as you submit your record you'll receive an email with a link to your "Under Review" page where you can see your attempt and share it with friends. Our community and moderators will then review the record and it will be marked as approved, failed, or denied. Attempts are generally processed within 48 hours.
In the Teenage pregnancy article, under the subsection "Age gap in relationships", the Family Research Council is listed as an authoritative source on the issue. Considering their track record of unreliability on LGBT issues (the SPLC say they rely on "junk science"), should they be considered a reliable source at all, and should their research be considered accurate on issues outside of the LGBT community? HelgaStick ( talk) 16:37, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
https://gizmodo.com/that-viral-story-about-a-japanese-man-crushed-to-death-1792986533 -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:12, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
It's simple: if an otherwise reliable source publishes something that turns out to be inaccurate or even false, then the clarification that it is false is what prevails. We either detail the whole story (that something was published and then proved wrong), or silently skip it (if the whole thing did not generate much controversy in itself). Reliable does not infallible, all sources may be prone to mistakes. In fact, a reliable source that commits such a mistake would likely add an Erratum in their next issue, to clarify it. Cambalachero ( talk) 14:47, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
For the record the Daily Mail banned all its journalists from using Wikipedia as a sole source in 2014 because of its unreliability.... Apparently up until 2014, DM journalists were not prohibited from using Wikipedia "as a sole source". That's frickin' scary. I mean, as Freedman said in the above-alluded to lecture. By the way, I found it. Cosmolearning doesn't have an excellent transcript like for Martin's New Testament series, but this sufficed; it's on YouTube here but I don't have the minute-and-second loc. The quote is
[The best libraries in Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries were not great, but they weren't terrible either.] This is not as if everything were-- well, [as of October 2011] I don't want to say Wikipedia either—if everything were like Wikipedia [in 2006], elementary and often wrong.Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:03, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
A new editor is inserting a fairly large volume of unreliably sourced material on the article censorship by Google. The improper text is based mostly to (1) opinion pieces (which are as a rule not citable for contentious characterizations or contested factual assertions); (2) primary and self-published sources that don't meet the requirements for use of such texts; and (3) citations to sources that may be reliable, but don't refer to "censorship" and are clearly out of scope of the article.
More eyeballs at the article — and comments at Talk:Censorship by Google#Unreliable sources / improper self-published sources / WP:SYNTH — would be welcome. -- Neutrality talk 19:50, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
(1) I'm not the one campaigning here; (2) you should keep that discussion in the talk page of the article, here we should only notify about the discussion. - Cilinhosan1 ( talk) 11:02, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
I never said that posting here is canvassingNo, but you strongly implied it by linking to WP:CAN. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 15:44, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
you should keep that discussion in the talk page of the article, here we should only notify about the discussionI would think Cilinhosan1 is under the (incorrect) impression that no content issues should be discussed at RSN. In that case, the link to WP:CAN was misguided but is not an aspersion. Tigraan Click here to contact me 15:31, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
is sad to see an editor resorting to deceiving through data manipulation with the objective to unjustify the action of others. A friendly bit of advice. Don’t make accusations like this on a page frequented by admins. WP:AGF Objective3000 ( talk) 14:56, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
External links search: [https://en.wikipedia.org/?target=*.immihelp.com&title=Special%3ALinkSearch]
Is immihelp.com to be considered a reliable source for immigration law type issues? It has a prominent disclaimer stating that it is not giving legal advice or opinions. There doesn't seem to be a named editorial staff or credentials. Most of it seems to run on anonymous advice given to people in their web forum. It may be an SEO operation. WHOIS ownership records are obscured but other online business ownership directories say Immihelp LLC is owned by two individuals in Texas whose names I do not recognize.
Examples of usage follow. Many of these references were inserted by a single editor or his employee.
Also calling JzG who deleted it:
It doesn't smell like a RS to me. - Bri ( talk) 01:12, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Hi, Apologies if this is in the wrong place,
I'm currently sourcing
Georgina Leonidas and one part states "she has another sister, Helena, who works as a teacher." - Should I use LinkedIn as a source or remove it entirely ?,
It feels wrong to add such a personal page as a cite but at the same time there are no other sources to confirm her being a teacher (or being her sister for that matter) so not sure what to do for the best, Thanks, –
Davey2010
Talk 22:05, 9 March 2017 (UTC)
We have lots of pages that have such family information- true, and I think in 90%+ of the cases it should be removed as hardly relevant (and/or NPF violations). But as I said, I understand other people may disagree.
I have recently discovered
Studopedia (
http://studopedia.su), which has the
top-level domain (TLD)
.su (Soviet Union). My understanding of Russian is limited, but
Wikipedia:Local Embassy lists 11 Russian-speaking editors (
User:Abdullais4u,
User:Brandmeister,
User:Brateevsky,
User:Calaf,
User:Evgenior,
User:Maxim,
User:MaxSem,
User:Music1201,
User:Orthorhombic,
User:SkyBon,
User:Fenikals). Also,
Wikipedia:Translators available lists some of those as well as some others (
User:Daniel Case,
User:Halibutt,
User:Aleksmot,
User:Anthony Ivanoff,
User:BACbKA,
User:Interchange88,
User:Smack,
User:TMW,
User:VKokielov,
User:XJaM). Is Studopedia a reliable source for Wikipedia editors?
—
Wavelength (
talk) 16:03, 8 March 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.
In the context of Black Lives Matter, I'm wondering about the reliability and notability of the following sources.
http://cnews.canoe.com/CNEWS/Canada/2017/02/11/22703425.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/black-lives-matter-toronto-yusra-khogali_b_14635896.html
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/james-di-fiore/black-lives-matter-toronto_b_14736160.html
http://www.torontosun.com/2017/02/06/banish-blmto-to-the-fringes-where-it-belongs
http://dailycaller.com/2017/02/13/black-lives-matter-leader-white-people-are-sub-human/
http://www.ibtimes.com/black-lives-matter-most-controversial-quotes-statements-2492936
http://info-direkt.eu/2017/02/14/black-lives-matter-mitgruenderin-nennt-weisse-untermenschen/
Benjamin ( talk) 15:21, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
info-direkt.eu
, but
WOT Services tells me it may be in the same boat as *The Daily Caller*.If you're looking for us to rubber stamp the entire list as reliable (or not), you're going about this the wrong way. If you want a useful response, you need to tell us what you want to use these sources for specifically. Fyddlestix ( talk) 16:55, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
As a whole, these particular stories don’t read the way you would like reliable sources to sound. I would be more comfortable with a Toronto broadsheet paper, or HuffPo non-blog area. If you can’t find such stories in a more respected paper; ask yourself why not. But, as said above, context matters. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:10, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Sorry for not being more specific. Something along the lines of:
The co-founder of the Toronto Black Lives Matter chapter has (allegedly?) called white people sub human and Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau a “white supremacist terrorist,”
Help rewording as appropriate is welcome.
Perhaps this is a discussion for the article talk page, but I just want to make sure that these sources are at least good enough for something before proceeding.
Benjamin ( talk) 10:39, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
First of all, this stems from Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva. My POV is that the removal of "not-approved" sources from articles without specific use case reasoning is a case of Wikipedia:If it ain't broke, don't fix it. I'd like consensus on this if y'all deem it worthy. However, if y'all choose to continue in a blanket manner approve or deny specific sources then, in my POV, we should have a publicly available list that links each source to an open debate about the reliability of said source as well as archived discussions. I hold this POV because I don't believe in Argument from authority or Argumentum ad populum or fixing things that aren't broken. As it currently stands we are using a logical fallacy as policy and are therefore broken. Every use of a source that isn't "approved" is a challenge to consensus because the editor that used it obviously thought that it was reliable enough for use in that specific use case. Therefore, not having an open discussion while also removing sources violates WP:NPV and challenges the use of consensus as an administrative tool.
TLDR: In order to rectify argument from authority I suggest the use of a list of talked about sources that links to open discussion and displays current measured consensus. If this is already semi-officially in place please let me know where so I can move there. Thank you for your time Endercase ( talk) 13:08, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Wow that is low.What is low?
First, you interrogate me on my talk page where I responded honestly and respectfullyOkay, that definitely is not what happened. However one interprets our interaction on that page, "honestly and respectfully" is not accurate. You dodged my question and kept going off on tangents about Donald Trump and the like, and you kept accusing me of getting angry.
and now thisIt's pretty clear from the rest of your comment that you don't know what "this" is, so I'm not going to bother asking.
I honestly believe what I have put here.I don't care what you put here; my comment was about what you didn't put here.
This is not a red herring of any sort.Read my comment again. I didn't say anything about red herrings.
It is meta discussion about the behavior of users on Wikipedia.It's considered extremely impolite to talk about other users without notifying or naming them, so if that is what you were doing it is wrong.
I noticed a problem due to the interactions at Stealth banning and chose to address it directly.So, you admit that part of your motivation for opening this discussion was related to the Stealth banning article? Because the whole point of my posting the above was to point out that this was apparently your motivation, but for whatever reason you had not mentioned it. "Ctrl+F" the word "stealth" and you will see that you didn't mention it here until after I pointed out that you probably should have.
There is nothing fallacious about it at all.If you claim that other editors are trying to prevent you from citing a source that, yes, should never be cited under almost any circumstances anywhere on the encyclopedia, but word it so that your opponents look like the ones violating policy and making up fake rules, that is indeed fallacious.
Additionally, your comment disrespects all users who have interacted with me here in a clear and honest manner suggesting that they couldn't recognize tomfoolery when they saw it.No, it would have been disrespecting them if called them all idiots for assuming good faith on your initial comment. I came across this thread because I saw your comments elsewhere on this noticeboard and noticed that they all seemed to be wrong, so I checked your contribs and noticed that your main reason for coming to this noticeboard seemed to be to open this discussion, as well as the fact that this discussion was misrepresented as being about Talk:Alfredo Beltrán Leyva when it seemed to be more relevant to Talk:Stealth banning (a page you have edited four times as often). You also forum-shopped the same dispute to NPOVN, and then apparently started making the same unhelpful comments in numerous threads over there as well (although I am not as familiar with how NPOVN works as here; it's possible comments like
making factual lists [of cherry-picked crimes committed by Muslims] is not POV,
major edits should only be made by signed in users. You could get them for that probably,
from what I've seen we shouldn't do anything. just try not to attack their free speech too[Wikipedia is not a forum for free speech],
it could also mean that the user has Autism spectrum disorder,
I feel like calling a "disorder" a derogatory term is actually kinda offensive... only look disruptive to me). Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 05:22, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
No, but I think that we should not single out the mail for special attention, the Mirror needs to be banned as well. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:01, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
Oh my, I posted this in the wrong location. It belongs on the talk page for Reliable sources, not the Noticeboard. As the Noticeboard is for discussions on particular sources and is definitely not for meta. I do not know what to do about this. Endercase ( talk) 20:11, 8 March 2017 (UTC)
If you've the time, would very much appreciate opinions on this RfC on Napoleon Hill talk. There was an RSN post here a while back but that did not get resolved. The article is not high traffic, so even with the bot notices, which should be going out soon, it might not garner much attention. Thanks. SW3 5DL ( talk) 20:25, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm running into a bit of the problem at Modest Mouse discography § Singles. I'm trying to find a source to back up the claim that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fishermen" were B-sides to the "Birds vs. Worms" single, but unfortunately, information has been scarce due to the single's rarity, with the overwhelming majority of pages I have visited mentioning the "Birds vs. Worms" single while leaving no mention of the B-sides. The best I've been able to find are the single's entries on Discogs and Rateyourmusic (which I already know are not reliable sources), and photographs of side B of the 7-inch single, as seen on Discogs, eBay, and Amazon (note: B-side label appears rotated 90° counter-clockwise). Could the B-side label of the single be used as a source to verify that "Every Penny Fed Car" and "Four Fingered Fishermen" were the B-sides for this release? While I'm leaning "no," it would be nice to get either confirmation or invalidation of my skepticism; that way, I can know whether or not to remove mention of the B-sides from the Modest Mouse discography here on Wikipedia. -- Dylan620 ( I'm all ears) 00:23, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
Although previously discussed here (thread started by @ The Land, with the only comment from @ Someguy1221 which I replied to, no major issues were raised), @ Nikkimaria removed the Daily Mail references from Snugburys, either deleting the referenced content or tagging it with citation needed. I've since reverted it (twice) as I don't think the removal of these references is warranted, and some discussion has started on the talk page. Additional viewpoints on this would be appreciated. Thanks. Mike Peel ( talk) 00:39, 10 March 2017 (UTC)
Can we shift this discussion towards the practicalities of cleaning up uses of the DM. I think this is actually a bit better than a couple of years ago when we were discussing the DM, when I did a random check and found inappropriate Mail-sourced gossip on a celebrity BLP. Now when I search for articles containing "mailonline" the first one I find is about a Daily Mail journalist, Laura Topham. I think we can all agree that this use is appropriate? The next one I find is Maddox Gallery, which is tagged for multiple issues including notability. I don't personally have a problem with notability because there are references to huffpost entertainment and CBS. Here, the Mail is used for the artists who have displayed their work, but not to Mail reviewer's opinion might arguably be usable, rather to archetypal celebrity tittle-tattle, an article entitled "Starting her young! Tamara Ecclestone cuts a chic figure in tailored jacket and thigh-high boots as she and daughter Sophia shop for pricey artwork". Itsmejudith ( talk) 16:41, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Source: Popbitch
Article: WER v REW
Content: Mr Hutcheson gained an injunction but it was later partially lifted. [1]
Submitted by -- David Tornheim ( talk) 16:24, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
Ah man, I thought the point of arguing was to come to a mutuality agreeable outcome and to exchange ideas.Read Argument, then. Or watch the way people argue in real life. Or watch some formal debates (IQ2 is a great series of them). Or get into an argument. Coming to a mutually agreeable outcome is desirable, but saying that's the point of arguing is like saying the point of having kids is to become the parent of a successful, happy person. It's just nonsensical.
And not to make the other person look bad by attacking their argument in an ad hominem...Read Straw man argument while you're at it, because that's what you're doing here. Also read ad hominem because if you think you can attack an argument with an ad hominem, then you don't know what an ad hominem is. Indeed, I've been trying to explain to you how to argue in a way that avoids ad hominems (which are usually fallacies), meanwhile you're presenting me with a situation in which an ad hominem argument would not be fallacious (it would, instead be a statistical syllogism), which is rather ironic and amusing if you think about it.
I guess that's the danger of using populism and voting to manage an information database instead of debate, discussion, sources, and consensus.Remember what I said in my last comment? Well this is one of those ignorant, ridiculous arguments it's acceptable to criticize. The reason it's so ignorant is because it ignores the fundamental definition of an argument, which is a statement that it intended to convince someone of something, which expounds into what I've said earlier, and results in discussion and consensus. It's also ignorant because it's made clear numerous times on WP that consensus is not a vote, that wikipedia runs on consensus, that our policies prohibit the devolvement of arguments into fights (see WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA), and generally prohibit ad hominem arguments except in very specific circumstances. It's ridiculous because it's founded in an ignorance of a number of basic facts, yet it is still asserted with conviction in an obvious display of sarcasm, as if it were obvious that it was true.
In Ghostbusters (2016), RedLettermedia, a video production organization, is referenced:
RedLetterMedia analyzed the YouTube comments and found that in a random sampling of 1000 comments, only 60 were negative about women and only 2.5% of total viewers voted dislike. RLM and others also reported Sony did delete criticism, while letting grossly sexist, derogatory or "trolling" comments be, leading to "misogynistic" comments misrepresenting overall criticism of the quality of the movie which, however, made it "bomb" in revenues.[122]
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Ghostbusters_(2016_film)&oldid=769813693
I can't find any other page that uses RedLetterMedia as a source of these sorts of statistical claims, and given the problematic nature of unobservable claims of what constitutes a random sample, it seems worrisome to rely on that source. cshirky ( talk) 22:33, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
On March 9, 2017, from BuzzFeed News reported here that "BuzzFeed News spoke with more than half a dozen officials involved with the committee’s investigation, both Democrats and Republicans. All the officials requested anonymity to more openly discuss the sensitive investigation." and "Even some Democrats on the Intelligence Committee now quietly admit, after several briefings and preliminary inquiries, they don’t expect to find evidence of active, informed collusion between the Trump campaign and known Russian intelligence operatives, though investigators have only just begun reviewing raw intelligence." Why would this not be considered reliable? Humanengr ( talk) 06:26, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Herostratus and Steve Quinn: Re the author: Per [28]: "BuzzFeed today will announce … additions to its foreign reporting staff, continuing a build-out that started in mid-2013. … Watkins shared a finalist designation in Pulitzer Prize for coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report on CIA torture." Per [29]: "The Huffington Post announced Wednesday that Ali Watkins will join its DC bureau as a political reporter. The 2014 Temple grad’s name may ring as bell. As an intern for McClatchy this past Spring, she was part of the team that broke the story that the CIA spied on computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee."( http://www.huffingtonpost.com/author/ali-watkins) Per https://www.buzzfeed.com/alimwatkins: "Ali Watkins is a national security correspondent for BuzzFeed News and is based in Washington, D.C." Humanengr ( talk) 14:42, 11 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Herostratus: More than one data point re Ali Watkins: 1) breaking the story that the CIA spied on computers used by the Senate Intelligence Committee, 2) HuffPo Washington bureau chief Ryan Grim: “We knew Ali would be a fantastic hire back when she was a college senior and worked on the McClatchy team that broke the news that the CIA was spying on the Senate Intelligence Committee over the panel’s torture report.” On WP, September 11 attacks cites her 9/3/2013 McClatchy "Senate intelligence panel could seek to declassify documents; it just doesn’t”; Fake news website cites her 11/30/2016 BuzzFeed "Intel Officials Believe Russia Spreads Fake News” in 7 places; Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board cites her McClatchy 11/2013 "NSA Cites stop and frisk”. "It does not mean 'this person is incapable of making a mistake or shading the truth" seems out of place. Humanengr ( talk) 05:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
It might be good to move the WP:WEIGHT / UNDUE discussion to the article talk thread at this point? SPECIFICO talk 19:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
@ Someguy1221, Herostratus, Steve Quinn, N-HH, Masem, Slatersteven, Blueboar, The Four Deuces, SPECIFICO, Thucydides411, and NPalgan2: Maybe we should try this again. Ali Watkins reported the story. The 'Nominated work' submitted to Pulitzer included 10 stories, several of which contained verbiage such as "Like all of those who spoke to McClatchy, the federal official requested anonymity because the case is highly sensitive, closely guarded and could potentially involve criminal charges." Ali Watkins was a Pulitzer finalist "For timely coverage of the Senate Intelligence Committee's report on CIA torture, demonstrating initiative and perseverance in overcoming government efforts to hide the details.” On what basis does anyone still care to voice an objection to reverting the revert or, alternatively, delete most if not all of this article (in line with Masem’s suggestion)? Humanengr ( talk)
Hi, I'm reviewing mafia boss Giosue Gallucci for Good Article and came across GangRule.com. It contains information about organized crime groups (mostly the Italian mafia) in the United States. It has biographies, events, photographs, family charts, etc. It claims to use a list of sources here, but sometimes the articles just state information without letting the reader where exactly where the information was used. It seems to have a lot of information and a huge source of information for some of our Italian mafia articles. Thank you, and let me know if you have any questions. ComputerJA ( ☎ • ✎) 01:50, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
See for previous discussions on student newspapers here and here. I would like to discuss The Orion, the student newspaper of California State University, Chico. The paper is around since 1975. This web-page gives a long list of awards won, and the paper's mission statement which says that "The Orion’s goal is to build journalistic excellence at Chico State by striving to inspire our readers to think critically, with complete, accurate and unbiased journalism." Still, an opinion piece on the Orion's site was removed as source from an "External views"-section since " student papers are not reliable sources." Was that done correctly? Or could an opinion on a student-newspaper-site be regarded as reliable as an external view? Best regards, Jeff5102 ( talk) 22:34, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Disappearance of Dorothy Forstein ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
I am not convinced by any of the references in this article, nor by internet searching. I proposed deletion, but someone has objected.
I'd like further opinions on the sourcing.
Here is my PROD reasoning;
This case does not seem notable. Except one small newspaper reference to the missing person, none of the sources are reliable. Blogs, facebook, and 'mystery sites' do not establish notability. I can find no hard information about this in mainstream media; it even says "oddly by the end of October, only one week after being printed in the newspapers, the story had largely died down" - referenced to a facebook group. Even if a person of this name did 'disappear', it doesn't seem worthy of an article, with so little information in RS. It seems possible this is partly, or mostly, an 'urban legend' story.
Thanks. 86.20.193.222 ( talk) 15:58, 14 March 2017 (UTC)
Gomolo.com describes itself as "Gomolo is the IMDb for Indian movies". Since IMDb is considered a non RS in most cases, is this any different? Same problems exist: their movie synopses don't seem to have an editorial credit, do we have evidence of a complete and correct compilation here?
An example of its use is this: it is the sole source for Albela (1971 film). - Bri ( talk) 16:46, 15 March 2017 (UTC)