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 220 | ← | Archive 224 | Archive 225 | Archive 226 | Archive 227 | Archive 228 | → | Archive 230 |
Would the Steal This Show podcast be okay for talking about the opinions of the speakers in the articles about the topics they talk about? Benjamin ( talk) 08:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
"...please be sure to include the following information, if available:
Is urbantortono.ca WP:RS for establishing notability of buildings in Toronto? The info. page is here, claiming it is "Toronto's premier website focused on condos, architecture, urban development and real estate." This relates to various WP:AfD's I have started on buildings that do not appear to be notable which rely on this website. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I emailed the "contact us" email address, and asked them to confirm that their articles are edited, and fact checked, by profession editor(s). I was told they were.
You are free to contact them yourself, to refute or confirm your concerns. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Source:
The Blockbuster Fan Page
Article:
Blockbuster LLC
Content:
While the Blockbuster brand has mostly been retired, Dish still maintains a relatively small number of Blockbuster franchise agreements, which allows some stores to remain open in several markets.
One website reports that there is a total of 11 remaining franchise-owned stores in the US, 12 stores in New Zealand, and 27 stores in Australia in operation as of April 2017. Franchise Entertainment was the largest overall, owning the 27 Australian locations and 12 New Zealand locations.
Discussion:
If it wasn't for The BBFP, These articles would say that there is 51 stores open, because of "franchise.html".
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (specifically, the Allegations of antisemitism subsection)
"We contend that the BDS movement, born of an ideology hostile to Judaism and Jewish nationalism and still immersed in that ideology rather than the language of peace, is not, as its proponents assert, a focused campaign aimed to change Israeli policies. Instead, it is a movement that often lacks integrity and quite often traffics in anti-Semitism. We have demonstrated that these anti-Semitic underpinnings are exhibited in the cultural, academic, and commercial spheres. In all three cases, persons who happen to be Jewish are blamed for the supposed sins of other Jews." (emphasis added)
Sheskin, Ira M. and Ethan Felson. "Is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement Tainted by Anti-Semitism?" Geographical Review. Vol. 106, Issue 2, 2016, pp. 270–75. Wiley Online Library. see the 6th page of the PDF which is labeled pg. 275 in the original published issue of Geographical Review)
As discussed here, the simple reading of the text that I quoted above supports my wording in the disputed edit ("BDS efforts have, at times, targeted Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict"). User:RolandR protested the edit because the source's summary of the arguments contained in the body of of the source does not, in RolandR's words "accurately reflect the contents of the source." I stipulated that the source could have used more precise language, but that the source can and should be interpreted in the way that I did.
If the summary in an article imprecisely describes the argument in the article, can this summary be regarded as reliable and cited in Wikipedia? -- GHcool ( talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Editors are trying to include a gossip column inserted first time by editors who were using anti-semitic Triple parenthesis slurs as well, which uses as its primary source a pair of reddit comments. This can't be a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 ( talk • contribs)
See this difflink MrPants https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World&curid=51486025&diff=777889576&oldid=777885859, IP addresses of this type were the ones originally trying to push "the independent" link. One inserter also tried to use right-wing / white supremacist sites like Breitbart and "LifeNews" as sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World&diff=777267858&oldid=777184193
Is the NBC News article archived here a reliable source for the following article text?
A September 2013 survey by the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun computed that there were about 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation at that time, comparable to the 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake and tsunami in the Fukushima Prefecture.
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster contains a similar quote, so I suppose the question applies to both. VQuakr ( talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The number of deaths in Fukushima Prefecture caused mainly by stress from the nuclear disaster reached 1,539 at the end of August, almost equaling the 1,599 fatalities due directly to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Mainichi Shimbun has learned.
In Robert Young (endurance runner), mention is made of his sponsor obtaining an expert report on a controversy. Mention of the actual report was deleted using the claim that the source is "blacklisted" even though the edit did not give a link to the blacklisted site as such, nor is the use of the site remotely near "spam." [3] shows the removal of actual legitimate content with the assertion "Removing blacklisted URL." Wikipedia, moreover, has an article on " Skins (sportswear)" and links to that same "blacklisted" site. So is use of the same site now improper where it is the "best source" for a claim? Collect ( talk) 14:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Are books published only on Amazon considered reliable? Here is an example. There is no publisher listed, other than the author, and no ISBN. I have no reason to think that there is anything wrong with this book. On the other hand, I have no idea if it was edited or even read by a second human. This book is used in the First Presbyterian Church (Coweta, Oklahoma) article, so that raised the question for me. I suppose it's part of a larger question about self-publishing in general, not just books. Leschnei ( talk) 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Amazon even admits it is self publishing
https://www.amazon.com/gp/seller-account/mm-summary-page.html/ref=footer_publishing?ld=AZFooterSelfPublish&topic=200260520
Morty C-137 (
talk) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I am working my way through a rebuild of United Blood Nation, a prison/street gang. (There seems to be a lot of unsourced info and some confusion with the tangentially related "Bloods".)
One of the best sources (in terms of content) that I have to work with is what appears to be a redacted copy of a USDOJ report. If it is what it says it is, it is a fantastic source.
Unfortunately, the only source I have for this report is a posting at cryptome.org. [4] The site, a Wikileaks kind of thing, has said, "We do expect to get false documents but it’s not our job to sort that out."
Thoughts? - SummerPhD v2.0 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
In light of the abolition of the Daily Mail as a reputable source here on Wikipedia, I thought it would be appropriate to bring up another similarly but arguably more so distrusted source. That is UK-based publication known as The Sun. According to the statistics of the studies mentioned on this news article, The Sun seems notably questionable. Furthermore, the content on their website seems more than slightly odd, opinionated and gossip-like, as does the Daily Mail in my opinion. Therefore, should this tabloid be considered an acceptable source, or should action be taken? I have not been able to come across any response to this issue here on Wikipedia so far. trainsandtech ( talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I think it could use some eyes.
The problem is that while all agree that the manuscript is an interesting historical artifact (even if it's a forgery), mainstream academia seems to regard it as just an interesting curiosity, and not a manuscript of any importance. So much of the research is done by either enthusiastic amateurs or academics from other fields.
You see the problem. A lot of the research on the manuscript is made up of self-published work from non-academics, and a bunch of the sources are from web-pages that appear to just be run by enthusiasts.
I hesitate to call it exactly "Fringe", most of it seems reasonably grounded, at least to a layperson, but much of it is not backed by an obvious academic consensus and the talk-page debates about what to include or not to include into the article seems to be coming down to thinly veiled judgement calls more than I'd like to admit.
The situation is complicated by this edit where (apparently) one of the amateur researchers removes his old self-published theories from the page, while there is an ongoing debate about including his new, completely contradictory self-published theory.
I'm not even sure what I think should be changed if anything, but I think the article would benefit from an uninvolved experienced editor glancing over it. Thank you.
ApLundell ( talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The article in which the source is being used is: Ashtiname of Muhammad.
Can Robert Spencer be quoted in a section of the article about the authenticity of the document to support the statement that:
the authenticity of the document has been challenged by some writers/commentators
The quote, found in this source, states that "There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a)."
That would LITERALLY be like quoting Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels about Jewish scripture. Morty C-137 ( talk) 12:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Also I am reasonably sure that "PJ Media" does not qualify as a Reliable Source under the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources rules. Morty C-137 ( talk) 12:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I am having hard time believing these 2 websites are credible for music criticism and journalism. References in question are: 1 and 2.
Both of these sites would not see the light of day on Metacritic, I can't find any info online let alone their websites that lead me to believe they are reputable. Entertainment Tonight is a gossip website. I can't find anything about the writers of the articles showing that they have a journalistic background apart from the Entertainment Tonight writer having done articles for sister gossip websites. Idolator I find extremely amateur using stan culture terms such as "slay" and "bop" in their reviews which are almost always positive. With such an array of reputable music sources such as Pitchfork, Spin (magazine), NME etc why should sites like Idolator and ET be allowed to interpret a song or album's genre, let alone used as a source for music reviews.
I was hoping to gather a second opinion as to whether these sources should be handled on a case-by-case basis or included in WP:ALBUMAVOID. Thank you. Abi-Maria ( talk) 20:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Daune Alexander Miller published this document Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census on this social network Academia.edu (which "is not a university or institution for higher learning and so under current standards it would not qualify for the ".edu" top-level domain") and is one of the two ( the other is Matt Gruber) prominent figure of the TCIIS:
"The Christian Institute of Islamic Studies seeks to equip the church to lead the Muslim world to faith in Jesus Christ by helping create a vision for Muslim evangelism, a compassion for Muslim people, and fervor for sharing the gospel with Muslims."
while the WEC International :
"is an interdenominational mission sending agency of Evangelical tradition".
Regarding the data provided Duane: "for more details on our data sources, see joshuaproject.net/help/data_sources" The Joshua Project is " a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the fewest followers of Christ. Accurate, updated ethnic people group information is critical for understanding and completing the Great Commission. Revelation 5:9 and 7:9-10 show that there will be some from every tribe, tongue, nation and people before the Throne."
That collects the data in this way:
"Joshua Project is not a formal research organization, but rather seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole."
Sadly in the "data_sources" page there are no data.
The author declares that he has published " a global census": the problem is that a census is "an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc. [1] So no, it's clearly not a census of any kind. Far from thath. And it's clearly not the pew research center, even though in some pages of wk they are located next to each other: so it makes no sense for these random numbers to be put together with those provided by recognized research center. AlessandroDe ( talk) 01:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
For example regarding Algeria the number provided by Duane Miller is 380,000 Muslim converted to Christianity. A big difference from what has been reported by the PEW (60.000 christians), or by a document i found, redacted by the United States Department of State in 2012, thath estimates between 30,000 and 70,000 christian and takes into account the fact that the country host a certain number of illegal, sub-saharian immigrant of christian faith awaiting the right occasion to reach europe.
So since the source is biased, since it's clearly not a census and claims numbers that are not reported elsewhere, in my opinion this source must be at least contextualized. AlessandroDe ( talk) 07:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
AlessandroDe ( talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Source: Walker, Morton M.D. Dmso: Nature's Healer, Penguin (1993) ebook; Amazon link here
Article: Adelle Davis
Content: Some feel that Davis has been wrongly criticized by "medical traditionalists," and is convinced that she "was way ahead of her time." According to medical author Dr. Morton Walker, D.P.M., "many of her nutritional suggestions have been confirmed by good scientific research." They note that "the ultimate traditionalists in nutrition, The United States U.S. Department of Agriculture, has, in fact, adapted much of her wisdom in its "Dietary Goals" for Americans. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Science proved Adelle Davis correct when it issued its 1982 report—two years in the making—on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer. The Council was made up of fourteen highly respected medical scientists."
Walker appears to be a prolific alt med author, who is promoting DMSO in this particular book (though appears to have promoted numerous cancer cures over the years). I do not believe that he is a credible source for what the US Department of Agriculture or NRC has done. I also feel that including his opinion of Davis here is WP:UNDUE, but that is not particularly relevant to this noticeboard. Yobol ( talk) 23:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, the group regularly organizes rent-a-crowd protests worldwide and hires hecklers. In a gonzo article published by the FrontPage Magazine, he mentions paid demonstrators coming from Denmark, Sudan and Eritrea.
I think it is acceptable source because of the author's background and being properly attributed to the author. Pahlevun ( talk) 18:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The question is not whether the FrontPage Magazine is a reliable source or not. Worst-case scenario, it is no way valuable. (similar fringe source for this material that User:Skyring mentioned above, was the same article in the Free Republic. I replaced it with the original source above.) The question is:
Can we add the sentence mentioned above to the article when it is attributed to the author (to reflect WP:SUBSTANTIATE), considering that he is Kenneth R. Timmerman? I mean, I think the author's report is worth mentioning and EVEN it was published on his own self-published source, it was a work in the author's field of expertize. His works in the same field have previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Pahlevun ( talk) 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought this was obviously not a reliable source, especially not for a BLP, but another editor has been restoring it, noting that the website has been included in the article for ten years. Would someone be able to take a look at it? St Anselm ( talk) 23:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Is source Stuff.co.nz a reliable source at article Murder of Seth Rich ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
A Mexican show wrestling magazine. Seems to have blog-like and or advert-like entries weekly online at [superluchas.com] as well as a print edition. Cited extensively in Wikipedia, but I have doubts about independence, editorial supervision, fact-checking etc. What if anything is it reliable for? Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 01:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The source is a blog. The author, Erika Matulich, Ph.D., is a doctor of accounting, but the blog is about ferrets. The information in the referred article is presented without justification.
Reference text:
Matulich E. "Deafness in Ferrets". Cypresskeep.com.
http://www.cypresskeep.com/Ferretfiles/Deaf.htm
In Waardenburg syndrome Section "Other Animals", there is a statement:
However, largely as a result of mass-breeding due to the "exotic" markings it gives, 75% of US ferrets with a blaze or white head sold from pet stores are deaf.
This statement is contentious because it is possible that "exotic markings" and deafness are both caused by the same allele which affects the development or migration of melanocytes. This could cause a 100% correlation between the phenotypes.
Please let me know if the reference is not acceptable and I will edit the page to remove the statement. Eltimbalino ( talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Heavy.com a reliable source ?
Also, same user added Daily Mail as a source.
Had to be called out first on the talk page about it.
Really need extra eyes on this article for users adding unreliable sources, please.
Thanks! Sagecandor ( talk) 12:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see this edit [6].
Is this source [7] Listverse.com a reliable source, especially with regards to this controversial topic ? Sagecandor ( talk) 19:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone needing a break might like to review atlasobscura.com which I saw at Slashdot. It's a tail (ha ha) regarding predatory journals. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I am considering doing a major cleanup of List of fake news websites, removing unreliable sources.
Before I do, I would like opinions on the following:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems like people are offering their opinions on the sources in general rather than for this specific purpose. That's well and good, but it seems worth pointing out that we're dealing with a pretty new concept (as "fake news" anyway). As such there's going to be little-to-no scholarly literature or other top tier sources providing content for a list. What we have is mainstream popular press, some prominent blogs, etc. If we're decided that we're going to have this list, we can't expect sophisticated peer reviewed IMRAD-style studies. That's not an argument to use poor sources, but that the claims about credentials and qualifications and methodologies are pointless.
Fusion.kinja.com is a Kinja site (a la Gawker, Deadspin, Gizmodo, etc.) and thus not usable for things when we have excellent sources about them, but isn't unacceptable for news about news. Buzzfeed news I put in a similar category, but while their average is probably about Kinja's average, their best is better. Christian Post seems ok for this purpose. Neurologica is written by Steven Novella, who is a pretty good source for discussion of [a particular kind of] mis/disinformation in the news. I'm not familiar with Respectful Insolence (the Science Blogs-hosted site), but would have to default to not using it. The legal document shouldn't be used to verify anything other than the details of the case. Daily Mail is a no, obviously, and Forbes contributors are, by default, a no.
Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College, has zero qualifications that make her a reliable source on what is and what is is not fake news.
- This is what led me to comment in the first place. You say this like "My cousin Tommy, who works at McDonald's, has no qualifications to talk about fake news". Based on the sources that exist about fake news, what exactly is a "qualification that makes someone a reliable source on what is and what is [not] fake news"? How are the authors of the other sources qualified in a way that a professor of communications would not be? Her list may be fraught, but it was republished, commented on, extracts published, etc. by many reliable sources. If her original list didn't have editorial oversight, those sources did. I wouldn't cite her list directly, but I'd cite what the other publications decided to republish (even if it requires two sources minimum). As an aside, WP:ZIMFF looks to be totally inappropriate as an attack page. You made an essay about a living person not being a reliable source and then sourced it to
WND,
The Daily Caller, and Hannity? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 23:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
As per the discussion at Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 4#Criteria for inclusion, Dr. Fleischman and I have a basic disagreement regarding the criteria for inclusion for List of fake news websites My criteria for inclusion are as follows:
To be included, a site must:
...and I am giving serious consideration to the idea posted here that there should be multiple reliable sources.
Dr. Fleischman's criteria for inclusion is as as follows:
I would welcome comments showing a consensus that we should have one or the other criteria for inclusion.
In addition, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake", shortly after I started removing entries from List of fake news websites that were based upon unreliable sources, Dr. Fleischman nominated an essay that I created for deletion. In that discussion, he appears to take the position that BLP protection extends to web sites containing editorial opinions. I would once again welcome comments at the MfD from those in the community who are familiar with our RS and BLP policies. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 6:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)\
Neurologica Blog has several things that seem to make it qualifiable as a reliable source. It's run by Steven Novella, who is a degreed authority in neurology as well as a well published skeptic. The guideline states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.". In Novella's case, his work in scientific skepticism has been published by the James Randi Educational Foundation, the New Haven Advocate newspaper, and he is also an editor of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, a peer reviewed journal. He is a Fellow at Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and at James Randi Educational Foundation. To put it another way, yes Neurologica Blog is a "blog", but its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Morty C-137 ( talk) 20:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Please check the following:
Source: Iran Chamber
Article: Ali Khamenei
Content:
Vigorous opposition to the government, including nonviolent and violent protest, assassinations, guerrilla activity and insurrections, was answered by state repression and terror in the early 1980s, both before and during Khamenei's presidency. Thousands of rank-and-file members of insurgent groups were killed, often by revolutionary courts. By 1982, the government announced that the courts would be reined in, although various political groups continued to be repressed by the government in the first half of the 1980s.
-- Mhhossein talk 18:58, 29 May 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.
Given the current issue with Fox News and their promotion of conspiracy theories, I think this needs to be examined. Are they unreliable? http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/media/fox-news-removes-seth-rich-story/index.html Morty C-137 ( talk) 20:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Problem is (a) they took 6 days, (b) many of their personalities (such as Hannity) are STILL pretending the story is real. And they tried to bury the retraction after hammering the story for six days.
What’s notable in that is how unapologetic the language of the retraction is—both considering the length of time the story was allowed to remain on Fox’s site, and even more especially because of the speed and the volume at which it was amplified. That’s in one way unsurprising: The story that was framed as evidence of the mainstream media’s collusion had become, in fact, evidence of the mainstream media’s restraint. The story whose subtext was the mainstream media’s inherent untrustworthiness had proven its real subtext to be the opposite.
And it took days to obtain even that terse retraction.
On Friday, a day after it first published the comments suggesting Rich’s connection to WikiLeaks—from Rod Wheeler, the former detective who had been hired by the family to investigate his death—the Fox affiliate clarified its story, writing, “What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.”
The story on Fox remained. It retained its chorus-like status.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/fox-seth-rich/527850/ Morty C-137 ( talk) 20:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The lesson here is that if Fox News trumpets a surprising "scoop" that is not corroborated by independent, reliable, non-partisan, credible sources, then it should not be considered "reliable enough" for inclusion until appropriately corroborated. Even more so in cases that fall under WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. At this point, there is really no excuse for making this kind of error of judgement a second time, and I would expect administrative responses to reflect that. MastCell Talk 22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I can accept that the recent incident at the Seth Rich article was the result of poor judgement, which is not a crime, but when I hear these kinds of ridiculous arguments comparing the Fox News conspiracy theories to reputable media reporting on the Trump/Russia allegations, then I start to worry that we're not learning anything from this episode of poor judgement. Speaking for myself, I don't think the ignorance-of-the-law excuse is going to fly a second time if there's a repeat of something like the Seth Rich incident—and that seems to be what we're talking about here, rather than a global judgement about Fox News' credibility or lack thereof. MastCell Talk 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Anybody run across this as a source? [[PPX]] ( talk) 15:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a question about a source for our Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. My field is electronics engineering, so I am asking for advice from those with more medical knowledge than I have.
On the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page I previously made the following comment:
I just got the following response:
The new source appears to contradict the sources I gave. Is this a reliable WP:MEDRS-compliant source, does it say what I think it says, and should the article be changed to reflect this new source? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The Metropolitan Museum Journal, a scholarly journal published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, is being used as the sole source to support notability of an object owned by the Museum. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) I am not questioning the journal's status as a scholarly source. I am arguing that in order for an individual caftan, or any garment, to pass WP:GNG, there has to be a source other than a journal published by the museum that owns the garment; an WP:INDEPENDENT source. An experienced editor is arguing that such articles can be the sole source for notability on the grounds that "In the case of very large and reputable museums like the MMA, the community is rightly ready to accept that good scholarly standards are being followed." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The 'raw story" is being used to support a, frankly dubious claim that Michael Connell's plane crash was intentional sabotage. Now i understand that the conspiracy theories around Connell's death might warrant at least a mention, being that its mentioned in a few places, but the edit in question states "Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged," diff. The source for this is, as i mentioned, the raw story link, which states "Without getting into specific details, 19 Action News reporter Blake Renault reported Sunday evening that 45-year-old Republican operative and experienced pilot had been warned not to fly his plane in the days before the crash.
"Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged," Renault said. "And twice in the last two months Connell, who is an experienced pilot, cancelled two flights because of suspicious problems with his plane.""
So two questions, 1) is the raw story a reliable source in this context and if so 2) is this claim notable/well sourced enough to include in this article? Bonewah ( talk) 13:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Is metro.co.uk RS? Is it the same publisher as Metro (British newspaper)? The web site is a Wordpress blog. It does not list editorial staff or policy. It seems to have "contributors" rather than journalists. It's being used as a source at Chloe Khan, a BLP. It says, without attribution and stated as a fact, that she is a "horrid person," [30] and that sounds more like opinion than news to me. Previous discussions at RSN do not directly address this question, but seem to imply it's a respectable newspaper. @ Boleyn: Kendall-K1 ( talk) 21:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Videos, pictures, links, captivating stories - We'll publish the best stuff on Metro.co.uk and across the social media universe." Reliable as mud. Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 13:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Struck most of my comment - I meant the British newspaper at metro.news. Sorry I didn't check that better. Boleyn ( talk) 14:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
They're definitely related sites. Metro.news runs articles from "Metro’s print newspaper and from the morning and evening edition of its Digital Edition app" (according to their About page), while metro.co.uk appears to run...basically anything. Metro.news email addresses are @metro.co.uk as well. Our own article at Metro (British newspaper) links to both sites. To their credit, metro.co.uk does separate their News and Entertainment sections, which may put their News section on par with metro.news, but they're also part of DMG Media. 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
See TigerSwan#Trump Presidency. It's really not clear what Reese or TigerSwan have to do with Trump Tower. Google brought up only mirrors of the same quote and this. We don't have an independent bio article on James Reese, so the article on his company seems to be the best place for an out-of-place remark he made about Trump Tower, but... I don't know. Does this look weird to anyone else? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello.
I have posted a list of statistics, and other information links, to the talk page of the "Crime in Sweden" article:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Crime_in_Sweden#Various_statistics_that_I_have_found
I would greatly appreciate help with input regarding which of them that would be fine to incorporate into the article. Thank you. David A ( talk) 15:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015:
There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015:
http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1478089201798/2016_Utsatthet_for_brott_2015.pdf
In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden:
To compare with 5920 the year 2015:
https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html
According to statistics assembled by the Swedish party Folkpartiet (while they were a part of the Swedish government together with other middle- or slightly right-wing parties) with data from the official statistics institution "Statistiska Centralbyrån" there were 155 criminal areas in the country in 2012, to compare with only 3 in 1990, and according to data similarly assembled by the economist Tino Sanandaji, there were 186 in 2014. The standards were apparently later changed to only include 55 such areas according to the Swedish police department (while the Green Party and the Social Democrats were in power instead):
http://www.dnv.se/nyheter/ny-rapport-utanforskapets-karta-en-uppfoljning-av-folkpartiets-rapportserie/ David A ( talk) 03:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
spend much of the rest of my free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our countryand "
feel like I have a moral responsibility to help inform the public about the horrible situation in this country" and you "
get extremely frustrated and depressed when there seem to be collaborative efforts to sweep all reliable statistics under the carpet. Not just in Wikipedia, but in society as a whole" ( [31], [32]). You've railed about "
POV-pushing systemic censorship" on Wikipedia and think that "
Wikipedia seems to become increasingly slanted and inaccurate, and less neutral, fact-based, NPOV" and "
do not see the problem with simply supporting people who fight for causes that I believe in" ( [33], [34]; see also [35], [36], [37], [38]). You clearly have an anti-Islam POV ( [39], [40], [41]). Based on this, your comments on Crime in Sweden and Immigration to Sweden appear to be attempts to push your POV using WP:SYNTH (see [42]). Frankly, this is something worthy of ANI at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for proving his point. Crime in Sweden has been going up, it has also been hushed up. Journalists are often told not to report on crime or not to mention demographics, which ironically is one reason why many Swedes are going to extreme sites for news, the mainstream news is not reporting it. At the very least, the statistics for Crime in Sweden should have the BRA data since that is pure, raw statistics. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Crime in Sweden (in particular rape statistics) has been politicized and opinionated on for years within Sweden but probably even more so in the US and the UK, where it has become an important tool for conservatives or nationalists to argue either against immigration or the (economic/social) "Scandinavian model" in general. Due to that high politicization it is advisable if possible to restrict sourcing as much as possible to scholarly sources and stay away from various news media outlets. Foxnews seems like an obvious no-go as a source in this regard, but i'd avoid the other examples linked above (telegraph, washington post, politifact) as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a reliable secondary source about the statistics at http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/ but it don't really say what the POV pushers want it to and I think that's the root of their problem. "In general terms, violence has decreased in Sweden in the last 20 years." "Data from the Swedish Crime Survey shows that in terms of lethal violence, there has generally been a downward trend over the past 25 years." "The studies show that the majority of those suspected of crimes were born in Sweden to two Swedish-born parents. The studies also show that the vast majority of people from foreign backgrounds are not suspected of any crimes." "researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden." "Swedish government agencies have nothing to gain from covering up statistics and facts; they seek an open and fact-based dialogue. Sweden is an open society governed by a principle of public access to official documents." "The Swedish economy is strong. Despite the high costs of immigration, Sweden recorded a public finance surplus in 2015, and the forecasts indicate that the surplus is set to grow until 2020." // Liftarn ( talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, getting away from inaccurate insults towards me personally, and focusing on the main issue, I have found various major newspapers that refer to the growth from 3 to 186 criminal areas:
http://www.gp.se/ledare/eberhard-skilj-p%C3%A5-%C3%A4pplen-och-p%C3%A4ron-1.3489555
https://www.svd.se/det-permanenta-undantaget
https://www.svd.se/jamfor-inte-med-balkaninvandringen
http://www.expressen.se/ledare/patrik-kronqvist/sverige-har-inte-stangt-gransen/
https://www.svd.se/hur-ska-det-ga-for-nasta-miljon David A ( talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=110&artikel=5900362
http://www.vlt.se/opinion/ledare/sakine-madon-braka-garna-liberaler-men-tank-ocksa-efter
http://sla.se/debatt/2017/02/28/var-har-anna-sandstrom-varit-de
https://www.svd.se/sveriges-resa-fran-kris-till-nostalgi
http://norran.se/nyheter/kommun/utanforskapsomraden-fortsatter-att-oka-211380
http://www.barometern.se/ledare/arvet-efter-sahlin-och-ullenhag/
https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/debatt/svensk-migrationspolitik-bygger-pa-mps-fantasier-11141 David A ( talk) 20:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable if I simply insert that Tino Sanandaji's bestselling "Massutmaning" book refers to his own study, as well as that of Folkpartiet? David A ( talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are various newspaper articles that discuss the book:
http://www.expressen.se/kultur/sakligt-av-sanandaji-om-invandringens-pris/
http://www.gp.se/ledare/en-massutmaning-i-vardande-1.4148629
http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/bokrecensioner/a/dABpA/inslappta--men-utestangda
https://nyheteridag.se/tino-sanandajis-bok-massutmaning-etta-pa-topplistorna/
http://www.norrteljetidning.se/opinion/ledare/en-massutmaning-att-gora-alla-delaktiga
http://www.expressen.se/ledare/anna-dahlberg/lofven-borde-akta-sig-for-alternativa-fakta/
http://www.gp.se/ledare/teodorescu-censur-h%C3%B6r-inte-hemma-p%C3%A5-biblioteken-1.4165434
http://www.gp.se/ledare/bostr%C3%B6m-ett-svenskt-moraliskt-misslyckande-1.4169699
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sprickan-om-invandrare-och-brottsligheten/
http://www.expressen.se/debatt/lamna-inte-migrationsfragan-till-extremisterna/
http://www.dagen.se/kronikor/eli-gondor-en-milstolpe-i-debatten-om-invandring-1.953971
http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/det-innvandringsdebatten-ikke-handler-om/67388785
http://www.gp.se/ledare/teodorescu-kinberg-batra-en-symbol-f%C3%B6r-reinfeldt-1.4194157
http://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/ledare/karin-pihl-bort-med-flosklerna-i-integrationspolitiken/
David A ( talk) 15:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
"År 1990 var endast tre bostadsområden utanförskapsområden, definierat med denna metod. Dessa var Marielund i Haparanda, Södra Rosengård i Malmö samt bostadsområdet Ryd i Linköping. De senare två är fortfarande utanförskapsom råden. Antalet utanförskapsområden fortsatte att öka mellan 2006 och 2012. År 2006 hade 156 bostadsområden så stora socioekonomiska problem att de definierades som utanförskapsområden. År 2012 hade antalet ökat till 186 bostadsområden, vilka finns markerade i Figur 4. Antalet boende i utanförskapsområdena uppgick till ungefär 488 tusen personer år 2006 och 566 tusen personer år 2012. Av landets befolkning levde 5,4 procent i utanförskapsområden år 2006, vilket ökade till 5,9 procent år 2012. En signifikant andel av de boende är andra generationens invandrare, alltså inrikes födda barn till utrikes födda föräldrar. Endast 26 procent av de boende i utanförskapsområdena år 2006 respektive 25 procent av de boende år 2012 hade svensk bakgrund, definierat som inrikes född med två inrikes födda föräldrar. År 2012 var 175 av 186 utanförskapsområden mer invandrartäta än riksgenom snittet. Det finns dock några utanförskapsområden med låg eller medelhög andel utrikes födda, ofta i bruksorter och glesbygd - till exempel bostadsområdena Bojsenburg i Falun och Vasastaden i Arboga."
"Dagen efter att min rapport publicerades släppte Folkpartiet (2014) för första gången på sex år en uppdaterad version av Utanförskapets karta. Antalet utanförskapsområden var 156 år 2006 enligt bägge rapporterna. Båda undersökte dessutom förändringen till och med år 2012. Trots samma metod och underlag från SCB blev slutsatserna märkligt nog inte desamma. Jag kom fram till att antalet utanförskapsområden under Alliansregeringen fortsatte att öka från 156 till 186. Folkpartiet menade att den uppåtgående trenden hade brutits och att antalet utanförskapsområden i stället sjunkit något till 155. Svenska Dagbladets ledarsida riktade kritik mot Folkpartiet för att de inte gjort sina beräkningar för år 2012 jämförbara med dem för år 2006, och för att de sedan drar slutsatser från två ojämförbara kalkyler (2014a):
Det är inte hederligt, och det förhindrar saklig debatt om hur vi ska komma tillrätta med utanförskapet. Kulmen på debatten kom efter ytterligare några dagar när en krönika av rappor tens upphovsperson Mauricio Rojas publicerades på SvD:s ledarplats (2014c): I oktober 2006 fick partiet ansvaret för integrationsfrågan, men av många djärva idéer och förslag blev det inte mycket. Berget födde en råtta, och utslagningen bara fortsatte. Detta visste partiets ledning och det blev inga nya kartor. Många efterfrågade en aktualisering av kartorna och tankesmedjan Den Nya Välfärden lät nationalekonomen Tino Sanandaji göra det. Han använde samma metod och underlag som vid tidigare kartor och kom fram till att utanförska pet ökat mellan 2006 och 2012: från 156 till 186 utanförskapsområden. 2012 bodde 566 000 personer i dessa områden; en ökning med hela 16 procent från 2006. Det mest klädsamma för FP hade varit att ärligt erkänna det som alla vet: att borgerligheten inte har varit ett dugg bättre än Socialdemokraterna på detta område. Men politiken tillåter inte en sådan öppenhjärtighet. Fast jag kunde aldrig föreställa mig det som skulle hända. Några timmar efter Sanandajis rapport kom FP ut med en egen karta, som visade en helt annan bild: det hade inte alls blivit fler utanförskapsområden och befolkningsandelen i desamma var oförändrad. Förklaringen till detta är enkel: FP gjorde några subtila metodologiska ändringar och simsalabim var misslyckandet åtminstone retuscherat. Erik Ullenhag säger att man har ”förfinat metoderna” (SvD 3/6), medan andra lätt kan kalla det för manipulation, fusk eller åtminstone ohederlighet, som det stod i SvD:s ledare i måndags."
David A ( talk) 13:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Should we use the Swedish police department's estimation of 55 criminal areas instead?
https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/Rapporter-utredningar/01%20Polisen%20nationellt/Ovriga%20rapporter-utredningar/Kriminella%20natverk%20med%20stor%20paverkan%20i%20lokalsamhallet%20Sekretesspr%2014.pdf David A ( talk) 04:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Source: Hofmann liner notes in "
J.S. Bach - Cantatas, Vol.23 (BWV 10, 93, 178, 107) (CD).
Åkersberga,
Sweden:
BIS. 2003. BIS-1331. With English liner notes by
Klaus Hofmann (pp. 6–11) and
Masaaki Suzuki (p. 11){{
cite AV media}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (
link)" (A bootleg copy of these liner notes can be found by clicking the PDF link in
this old revision – the external link has since been
removed per
WP:COPYLINK)
Article: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10
Content:
References
Context: FAC assessment of the article. Afaik the above source has never been discussed at RSN. I recall at least one previous RSN discussion that has been negative towards using liner notes for content in articles about compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach (other article, other liner notes). In the FAC discussion it has however been pointed out that other liner notes in other Bach composition articles have been FA approved. It has been suggested to bring this to RSN to set precedent. However, I wouldn't be too worried about the "precedent" part now: can we figure it out for this article (BWV 10), with these liner notes, and for the content as listed above? Whether or not this would have any precedent value isn't a concern at this point in time. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Updated content §6, per current text and reference in the article. 08:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:Svalbard Global Seed Vault#Recent publicity over acute melting weather I have been in an interesting discussion about recent sources that reported flooding of the seed vault. At issue is whether the flooding was caused by rain and snowmelt, or whether the permafrost itself actually melted, with what looks like reasonable sources for both claims. I could use some help sorting this one out. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Interesting website: Kill or cure? Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
A user, Josegerman188 ( talk · contribs) has been adding the Oricon Album Chart Book to source sales in many of the Madonna articles like here. He's using the following book source: Oricon Album Chart Book: Complete Edition 1970–2005. Roppongi, Tokyo: Oricon Charts. 2006. ISBN 4-87131-077-9. however it has no page number and I cannot verify the book from online anywhere also. Obviously I cannot read Japanese. Can anyone help here with the validity of the book? Without page number I do not think we can accept it properly. — IB [ Poke ] 03:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Do other editors feel that the Crime Prevention Research Center (which is run by economist and gun control opponent John Lott) is a reliable source? Specifically, I wanted to ask about its use in the article Estimated number of guns per capita by country as reference 4, to support the claim that gun ownership in Israel is significantly higher than estimated by the Small Arms Survey. Everymorning (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that Nyheter Idag is used as a source on articles such as Benjamin R. Teitelbaum, 2017 Uppsala rape Facebook live streaming incident and We Are Sthlm sexual assaults. Considering it's a far right [53], xenophobic [54] website I wonder if that is really OK? // Liftarn ( talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
In checking something, I found that the BBC Iplayer, will soon need users to register for an account, (in addition to needing a TV license for watching TV shows on it.)
There are approx 1500 links: https://en.wikipedia.org/?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fiplayer&title=Special%3ALinkSearch that will need to be changed over to "Progamme" page links rather than direct links to Iplayer.
In terms of needing a subscription or registration, this is a relatively minor change {{ subscription required}} already existing.Applying it to over 1500 links potentially embedded in citations is more complex.
However, It is bad practice to link directly to I-player content in citations because I-player content tends to get removed after 7-30 days, creating dead links, whereas specifc "Programme" pages tend to be somewhat more persistent. I also note there is a specific cite template for citing episodes and AV material which can be utilised in preference to directly linking the Iplayer content.
Unless there were objections, it was planned to suggest the removal of direct links to Iplayer content in the next few weeks.
Feedback is however sought prior to doing this as it would need some technical assistance to remove over 1500 links from Wikipedia in a clean manner. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 19:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Cass, User:Keybeeny stated that it is "a fraudulent, bot-created website [...] which gathers information from Social Media". Spot-checking a few articles on that site, I do not see any references or other sources. I don't see any sitewide "about" page either. The footer states "Contents published by users are under Creative Commons License." but I can't tell whether the articles are that user-generated content vs there being some user reponse area for articles written by the site itself. It's currently used for about 35 cites, including (by spot-check) BLP biographical information, and information that is cited (or presumably could be cited) to elsewhere as well. Does anyone feel that this site is a viable ref...for BLP, or at all? DMacks ( talk) 18:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have not heard of Pacific Wrecks before and don't know if they'd be considered a reliable source. Although there is a People page, I cannot find information about who runs the site, whether any of these people write for the site, the degree of editorial control, etc. There were three links added to the article:
Would this be considered a reliable site for this sort of information?
Thank you!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is a subject's official Twitter feed considered a reliable source for confirming biographical facts? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I know that much of what's on Bloomberg is...well, what is it? User-submitted? I'm thinking of all those executive and company profiles, either written by the company's PR department or by the advertisement editor at Bloomberg--stuff like this, which finds its way into Wikipedia too easily (in this case, in Arthur Rubinfeld). But I also saw this, "CEOs of Tomorrow", which looks no more reliable. Any of you know your Bloomberg inside and out? Drmies ( talk) 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Several times now I have linked to a study which showed that for medical news, virtually every publication relies on press releases (including outright copying of the press release!). The same is true of "business news", I fear. The number of actual "reporters" has fallen steadily over the years, and many of the "star reporters" do their best to appear as actors in the story. In my opinion, the current wording of
WP:RS is wishful thinking on the part of Wikipedia editors.
Collect (
talk) 23:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Question about an article I wrote on the book, The Plot to Hack America:
It is in "Amazon Best Sellers" lists, can I cite those as sources for the article?
If not, no problems, and thank you for your help ! Sagecandor ( talk) 10:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
See the guideline here. Amazon's charts are a single-vendor list and thus not really useable, especially when spliced into sub-categories (people who know what they're doing have no trouble turning their own books into "amazon bestsellers.") Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
See [58], Special:Permalink/783867320#Edit_request and [59] (talk page space in this case). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 04:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the editor who posted those links made good faith attempts to make easy to determine that a source is unreliable. I have looked at what links to the RFC page, hoping that there is an easier way then searching teahouse and rsn archives to determine if a source should be avoided. Of interest are WP:IRS (only a footnote mention), WP:PUS (an essay that seems better, although probably unofficial, it clearly includes it). Perhaps that an effort to come up with a more official guideline page (inspired or evolved from WP:PUS), and/or pointing to WP:PUS more prominently would be a good idea? We have a spam-links blacklist, but this is obviously different. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 02:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
"Reliable sources Noticeboard:Daily Mail RfC". Wikipedia. 8 February 2017. Retrieved 6 June 2017.. Posting the WP:DAILYMAIL link in the article Daily Mail to "inform editors" is absolutely not OK. That is not what mainspace is for. Jytdog ( talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
My questions may have been unclearly formulated, there were multiple questions, making it confusing to link answers to questions. My impression is that WP:PUS (or an equivalent) could be easier to find than it is. An example may be the header text we have at this WP:RSN (which points to WP:IRS for instance). WP:IRS itself links to WP:PUS but it's a needle in a haystack of essays. I'm not suggesting to link to WP:DAILYMAIL in the Daily Mail article or on that article's talk page. Only to make it easier to find WP:PUS or an equivalent instead of needing to search the boards or WP space to find this RFC. I'll present this again as distinct questions:
Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 03:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
After reading about how Fox News negligently published fake news in April, I went back and found the Fox News story in question. What is interesting about this now-retracted source is that its purported "author" wasn't an individual, but instead was The Sun, a tabloid also owned by News Corp, Fox News' parent company.
Fox News, which we generally consider a reliable source, is publishing tabloid journalism under its own banner. (What are they thinking?!) Think about the implications of this:
(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
More generally, I know what you're doing. You're playing the Jayson Blair gambit, to wit: since the New York Times has occasionally published things that later turned out to be incorrect or fabricated, it is therefore no different from [insert name of low-quality partisan source here]. This is sophistry, but I lack the patience to explain why if it's not immediately obvious to you. MastCell Talk 17:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to resubmit a modified version of this. I am not sure why this editor is choosing to escalate this dispute the clear guidance of WP:AGE MATTERS, but clarification on this would be helpful as there appears to be a general disagreement over whether WP:AGE MATTERS applies to Christianity articles. (My position is that it especially applies because of significant advances in the field, like the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrools, and major doctrinal changes, including the rewriting of the Catechism. The vocabulary and language used by the Church has also been updated and significantly modernized, intentionally, and we can see this reflected in our modern translations of the Bible like NRSV and ESV.)
The source is question is "The moveable feasts, fasts and other annual observances of the Catholic Church".(Dublin, 1775) and the quote is "The Christian Pentecost is celebrated seven weeks or fifty days after the feast of the Lord's Resurrection." I don't think this is something we would consider WP:RS, and I have found more modern and widely cited WP:RS. I can not imagine why my effort to update the source would be reverted.
More discussion: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
This last comment doesn't make any sense because none of the sources suffer from WP:RECENTISM and it doesn't address all the reasons why WP:AGE MATTERS must apply to an 18th century Catholic source (including vocabulary changes, and the fact that the Catechism has been rewritten). I will likely have to file separately at dispute resolution regarding the broader reoccuring issues on this page, but I would like to get this particular WP:RS issue clarified—(I have a feeling this is a reoccurring problem in Christianity articles.)
Also, I have never posted here before, is there some kind of notification template I can use to notify editors who have been involved in the discussion?
Seraphim System ( talk) 06:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
vocabulary changedis an issue. Also TDNT is not tertiary, its one of the most authoritative secondary sources in the field of biblical studies, used by Bruce Metzger who supervised the NRSV English language translation of the Bible, and also worked on the Nestle-Aland Greek manuscript, and Fredrich Danker of the Bauer-Danker Lexicon, so it is a significantly stronger source for the specific language then a minor 18th century source, and my position is that it should not be replaced by a minor and dated source. Seraphim System ( talk) 08:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I had to check to see if the source had been superseded, while, contrary to what Andreas Philopater says above, the burden for WP:V is on those who support inclusion. That is required by WP:AGEMATTERS — "might have changed" is enough under the policy. The editor adding it needs to do this. Reading the policy again, my understanding is that its use is not a problem unless the source has been superseded. Regarding persistent misunderstandings of WP:V and WP:RS, I think maybe this is behavioral. In the future, if you want to add something, you are responsible for sourcing it adequately. If this continues as a persistent problem on the article, the next step will be dispute resolution. Seraphim System ( talk) 12:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe alternative sources such as this, this or this can be helpful to come out of the conundrum (I mean both as references for the article, and as outlines for a careful wording of the article text for the "number of weeks times 7" ≠ "number of days" situation)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The source is LSJ Lexicon from the 19th century. This is one problem with using 19th century sources—editors often make mistakes.
The source says
2. (sc. ἡμέρα), fiftieth day (after the Passover), Pentecost, LXX 2 Ma. 12.32 ; ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς Π. Act.Ap. 2.1.
Our text currently says "hēmera tēs pentēkostē" is the Greek text for Acts 2:1, but it is not. According to NA28 (the current and most widely used greek new testament) the language in Acts 2:1 is hemeran tes pentekostes — It seems the source is dated and superseded by Nestle-Aland under WP:AGE MATTERS — I would appreciate some guidance here on limiting the improper use of older sources, as it seems this will be an ongoing problem until it is clarified.
Attempts on the talk page have failed to produce cogent discussion, as editors do not agree that there have been advances in New Testament scholarship since the 19th century.
Unfortunately, it's clear from this example that the LSJ form is Dative, and the NA28 form is Accusative. This is actually a big deal, for those of us who are interested in Bible Study. Seraphim System ( talk) 19:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:The_Case_for_Impeachment#Irrelevant_additions are bare hyper-links to Amazon.com acceptable sources to add to this article to say there are other books by the same title?
Is that relevant to add to this article?
Do we required secondary sources for this?
Does that violate WP:No original research ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:49, 10 June 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 220 | ← | Archive 224 | Archive 225 | Archive 226 | Archive 227 | Archive 228 | → | Archive 230 |
Would the Steal This Show podcast be okay for talking about the opinions of the speakers in the articles about the topics they talk about? Benjamin ( talk) 08:00, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
"...please be sure to include the following information, if available:
Is urbantortono.ca WP:RS for establishing notability of buildings in Toronto? The info. page is here, claiming it is "Toronto's premier website focused on condos, architecture, urban development and real estate." This relates to various WP:AfD's I have started on buildings that do not appear to be notable which rely on this website. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 00:58, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
I emailed the "contact us" email address, and asked them to confirm that their articles are edited, and fact checked, by profession editor(s). I was told they were.
You are free to contact them yourself, to refute or confirm your concerns. Geo Swan ( talk) 22:19, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Source:
The Blockbuster Fan Page
Article:
Blockbuster LLC
Content:
While the Blockbuster brand has mostly been retired, Dish still maintains a relatively small number of Blockbuster franchise agreements, which allows some stores to remain open in several markets.
One website reports that there is a total of 11 remaining franchise-owned stores in the US, 12 stores in New Zealand, and 27 stores in Australia in operation as of April 2017. Franchise Entertainment was the largest overall, owning the 27 Australian locations and 12 New Zealand locations.
Discussion:
If it wasn't for The BBFP, These articles would say that there is 51 stores open, because of "franchise.html".
Self-published and questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, usually in articles about themselves or their activities...
Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (specifically, the Allegations of antisemitism subsection)
"We contend that the BDS movement, born of an ideology hostile to Judaism and Jewish nationalism and still immersed in that ideology rather than the language of peace, is not, as its proponents assert, a focused campaign aimed to change Israeli policies. Instead, it is a movement that often lacks integrity and quite often traffics in anti-Semitism. We have demonstrated that these anti-Semitic underpinnings are exhibited in the cultural, academic, and commercial spheres. In all three cases, persons who happen to be Jewish are blamed for the supposed sins of other Jews." (emphasis added)
Sheskin, Ira M. and Ethan Felson. "Is the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions Movement Tainted by Anti-Semitism?" Geographical Review. Vol. 106, Issue 2, 2016, pp. 270–75. Wiley Online Library. see the 6th page of the PDF which is labeled pg. 275 in the original published issue of Geographical Review)
As discussed here, the simple reading of the text that I quoted above supports my wording in the disputed edit ("BDS efforts have, at times, targeted Jewish individuals who have little or nothing to do with the Arab-Israeli conflict"). User:RolandR protested the edit because the source's summary of the arguments contained in the body of of the source does not, in RolandR's words "accurately reflect the contents of the source." I stipulated that the source could have used more precise language, but that the source can and should be interpreted in the way that I did.
If the summary in an article imprecisely describes the argument in the article, can this summary be regarded as reliable and cited in Wikipedia? -- GHcool ( talk) 15:39, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Editors are trying to include a gossip column inserted first time by editors who were using anti-semitic Triple parenthesis slurs as well, which uses as its primary source a pair of reddit comments. This can't be a reliable source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morty C-137 ( talk • contribs)
See this difflink MrPants https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World&curid=51486025&diff=777889576&oldid=777885859, IP addresses of this type were the ones originally trying to push "the independent" link. One inserter also tried to use right-wing / white supremacist sites like Breitbart and "LifeNews" as sources. https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Bill_Nye_Saves_the_World&diff=777267858&oldid=777184193
Is the NBC News article archived here a reliable source for the following article text?
A September 2013 survey by the newspaper Mainichi Shimbun computed that there were about 1,600 deaths related to the evacuation at that time, comparable to the 1,599 deaths due to the earthquake and tsunami in the Fukushima Prefecture.
Fukushima Daiichi nuclear disaster contains a similar quote, so I suppose the question applies to both. VQuakr ( talk) 00:35, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
The number of deaths in Fukushima Prefecture caused mainly by stress from the nuclear disaster reached 1,539 at the end of August, almost equaling the 1,599 fatalities due directly to the 2011 Great East Japan Earthquake and tsunami, the Mainichi Shimbun has learned.
In Robert Young (endurance runner), mention is made of his sponsor obtaining an expert report on a controversy. Mention of the actual report was deleted using the claim that the source is "blacklisted" even though the edit did not give a link to the blacklisted site as such, nor is the use of the site remotely near "spam." [3] shows the removal of actual legitimate content with the assertion "Removing blacklisted URL." Wikipedia, moreover, has an article on " Skins (sportswear)" and links to that same "blacklisted" site. So is use of the same site now improper where it is the "best source" for a claim? Collect ( talk) 14:05, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Are books published only on Amazon considered reliable? Here is an example. There is no publisher listed, other than the author, and no ISBN. I have no reason to think that there is anything wrong with this book. On the other hand, I have no idea if it was edited or even read by a second human. This book is used in the First Presbyterian Church (Coweta, Oklahoma) article, so that raised the question for me. I suppose it's part of a larger question about self-publishing in general, not just books. Leschnei ( talk) 23:31, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Amazon even admits it is self publishing
https://www.amazon.com/gp/seller-account/mm-summary-page.html/ref=footer_publishing?ld=AZFooterSelfPublish&topic=200260520
Morty C-137 (
talk) 14:32, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
I am working my way through a rebuild of United Blood Nation, a prison/street gang. (There seems to be a lot of unsourced info and some confusion with the tangentially related "Bloods".)
One of the best sources (in terms of content) that I have to work with is what appears to be a redacted copy of a USDOJ report. If it is what it says it is, it is a fantastic source.
Unfortunately, the only source I have for this report is a posting at cryptome.org. [4] The site, a Wikileaks kind of thing, has said, "We do expect to get false documents but it’s not our job to sort that out."
Thoughts? - SummerPhD v2.0 15:41, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
In light of the abolition of the Daily Mail as a reputable source here on Wikipedia, I thought it would be appropriate to bring up another similarly but arguably more so distrusted source. That is UK-based publication known as The Sun. According to the statistics of the studies mentioned on this news article, The Sun seems notably questionable. Furthermore, the content on their website seems more than slightly odd, opinionated and gossip-like, as does the Daily Mail in my opinion. Therefore, should this tabloid be considered an acceptable source, or should action be taken? I have not been able to come across any response to this issue here on Wikipedia so far. trainsandtech ( talk) 10:46, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this is the right place for this, but I think it could use some eyes.
The problem is that while all agree that the manuscript is an interesting historical artifact (even if it's a forgery), mainstream academia seems to regard it as just an interesting curiosity, and not a manuscript of any importance. So much of the research is done by either enthusiastic amateurs or academics from other fields.
You see the problem. A lot of the research on the manuscript is made up of self-published work from non-academics, and a bunch of the sources are from web-pages that appear to just be run by enthusiasts.
I hesitate to call it exactly "Fringe", most of it seems reasonably grounded, at least to a layperson, but much of it is not backed by an obvious academic consensus and the talk-page debates about what to include or not to include into the article seems to be coming down to thinly veiled judgement calls more than I'd like to admit.
The situation is complicated by this edit where (apparently) one of the amateur researchers removes his old self-published theories from the page, while there is an ongoing debate about including his new, completely contradictory self-published theory.
I'm not even sure what I think should be changed if anything, but I think the article would benefit from an uninvolved experienced editor glancing over it. Thank you.
ApLundell ( talk) 01:55, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The article in which the source is being used is: Ashtiname of Muhammad.
Can Robert Spencer be quoted in a section of the article about the authenticity of the document to support the statement that:
the authenticity of the document has been challenged by some writers/commentators
The quote, found in this source, states that "There is no mention of this document in any remotely contemporary Islamic sources; among other anomalies, it bears a drawing of a mosque with a minaret, although minarets weren’t put on mosques until long after the time Muhammad is supposed to have lived, which is why Muslim hardliners consider them unacceptable innovation (bid’a)."
That would LITERALLY be like quoting Hermann Göring or Joseph Goebbels about Jewish scripture. Morty C-137 ( talk) 12:36, 19 May 2017 (UTC) Also I am reasonably sure that "PJ Media" does not qualify as a Reliable Source under the Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources rules. Morty C-137 ( talk) 12:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
Hi all. I am having hard time believing these 2 websites are credible for music criticism and journalism. References in question are: 1 and 2.
Both of these sites would not see the light of day on Metacritic, I can't find any info online let alone their websites that lead me to believe they are reputable. Entertainment Tonight is a gossip website. I can't find anything about the writers of the articles showing that they have a journalistic background apart from the Entertainment Tonight writer having done articles for sister gossip websites. Idolator I find extremely amateur using stan culture terms such as "slay" and "bop" in their reviews which are almost always positive. With such an array of reputable music sources such as Pitchfork, Spin (magazine), NME etc why should sites like Idolator and ET be allowed to interpret a song or album's genre, let alone used as a source for music reviews.
I was hoping to gather a second opinion as to whether these sources should be handled on a case-by-case basis or included in WP:ALBUMAVOID. Thank you. Abi-Maria ( talk) 20:19, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
Daune Alexander Miller published this document Believers in Christ from a Muslim Background: A Global Census on this social network Academia.edu (which "is not a university or institution for higher learning and so under current standards it would not qualify for the ".edu" top-level domain") and is one of the two ( the other is Matt Gruber) prominent figure of the TCIIS:
"The Christian Institute of Islamic Studies seeks to equip the church to lead the Muslim world to faith in Jesus Christ by helping create a vision for Muslim evangelism, a compassion for Muslim people, and fervor for sharing the gospel with Muslims."
while the WEC International :
"is an interdenominational mission sending agency of Evangelical tradition".
Regarding the data provided Duane: "for more details on our data sources, see joshuaproject.net/help/data_sources" The Joshua Project is " a research initiative seeking to highlight the ethnic people groups of the world with the fewest followers of Christ. Accurate, updated ethnic people group information is critical for understanding and completing the Great Commission. Revelation 5:9 and 7:9-10 show that there will be some from every tribe, tongue, nation and people before the Throne."
That collects the data in this way:
"Joshua Project is not a formal research organization, but rather seeks to compile and integrate ethnic peoples information from various global, regional and national researchers and workers into a composite whole."
Sadly in the "data_sources" page there are no data.
The author declares that he has published " a global census": the problem is that a census is "an official enumeration of the population, with details as to age, sex, occupation, etc. [1] So no, it's clearly not a census of any kind. Far from thath. And it's clearly not the pew research center, even though in some pages of wk they are located next to each other: so it makes no sense for these random numbers to be put together with those provided by recognized research center. AlessandroDe ( talk) 01:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
For example regarding Algeria the number provided by Duane Miller is 380,000 Muslim converted to Christianity. A big difference from what has been reported by the PEW (60.000 christians), or by a document i found, redacted by the United States Department of State in 2012, thath estimates between 30,000 and 70,000 christian and takes into account the fact that the country host a certain number of illegal, sub-saharian immigrant of christian faith awaiting the right occasion to reach europe.
So since the source is biased, since it's clearly not a census and claims numbers that are not reported elsewhere, in my opinion this source must be at least contextualized. AlessandroDe ( talk) 07:27, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
AlessandroDe ( talk) 16:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
References
Source: Walker, Morton M.D. Dmso: Nature's Healer, Penguin (1993) ebook; Amazon link here
Article: Adelle Davis
Content: Some feel that Davis has been wrongly criticized by "medical traditionalists," and is convinced that she "was way ahead of her time." According to medical author Dr. Morton Walker, D.P.M., "many of her nutritional suggestions have been confirmed by good scientific research." They note that "the ultimate traditionalists in nutrition, The United States U.S. Department of Agriculture, has, in fact, adapted much of her wisdom in its "Dietary Goals" for Americans. The National Research Council of the National Academy of Science proved Adelle Davis correct when it issued its 1982 report—two years in the making—on Diet, Nutrition, and Cancer. The Council was made up of fourteen highly respected medical scientists."
Walker appears to be a prolific alt med author, who is promoting DMSO in this particular book (though appears to have promoted numerous cancer cures over the years). I do not believe that he is a credible source for what the US Department of Agriculture or NRC has done. I also feel that including his opinion of Davis here is WP:UNDUE, but that is not particularly relevant to this noticeboard. Yobol ( talk) 23:39, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
According to Kenneth R. Timmerman, the group regularly organizes rent-a-crowd protests worldwide and hires hecklers. In a gonzo article published by the FrontPage Magazine, he mentions paid demonstrators coming from Denmark, Sudan and Eritrea.
I think it is acceptable source because of the author's background and being properly attributed to the author. Pahlevun ( talk) 18:47, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
The question is not whether the FrontPage Magazine is a reliable source or not. Worst-case scenario, it is no way valuable. (similar fringe source for this material that User:Skyring mentioned above, was the same article in the Free Republic. I replaced it with the original source above.) The question is:
Can we add the sentence mentioned above to the article when it is attributed to the author (to reflect WP:SUBSTANTIATE), considering that he is Kenneth R. Timmerman? I mean, I think the author's report is worth mentioning and EVEN it was published on his own self-published source, it was a work in the author's field of expertize. His works in the same field have previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Pahlevun ( talk) 10:28, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
I would have thought this was obviously not a reliable source, especially not for a BLP, but another editor has been restoring it, noting that the website has been included in the article for ten years. Would someone be able to take a look at it? St Anselm ( talk) 23:25, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
Is source Stuff.co.nz a reliable source at article Murder of Seth Rich ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:48, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
A Mexican show wrestling magazine. Seems to have blog-like and or advert-like entries weekly online at [superluchas.com] as well as a print edition. Cited extensively in Wikipedia, but I have doubts about independence, editorial supervision, fact-checking etc. What if anything is it reliable for? Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 01:25, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
The source is a blog. The author, Erika Matulich, Ph.D., is a doctor of accounting, but the blog is about ferrets. The information in the referred article is presented without justification.
Reference text:
Matulich E. "Deafness in Ferrets". Cypresskeep.com.
http://www.cypresskeep.com/Ferretfiles/Deaf.htm
In Waardenburg syndrome Section "Other Animals", there is a statement:
However, largely as a result of mass-breeding due to the "exotic" markings it gives, 75% of US ferrets with a blaze or white head sold from pet stores are deaf.
This statement is contentious because it is possible that "exotic markings" and deafness are both caused by the same allele which affects the development or migration of melanocytes. This could cause a 100% correlation between the phenotypes.
Please let me know if the reference is not acceptable and I will edit the page to remove the statement. Eltimbalino ( talk) 08:38, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Is Heavy.com a reliable source ?
Also, same user added Daily Mail as a source.
Had to be called out first on the talk page about it.
Really need extra eyes on this article for users adding unreliable sources, please.
Thanks! Sagecandor ( talk) 12:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Please see this edit [6].
Is this source [7] Listverse.com a reliable source, especially with regards to this controversial topic ? Sagecandor ( talk) 19:31, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone needing a break might like to review atlasobscura.com which I saw at Slashdot. It's a tail (ha ha) regarding predatory journals. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I am considering doing a major cleanup of List of fake news websites, removing unreliable sources.
Before I do, I would like opinions on the following:
-- Guy Macon ( talk) 09:12, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
It seems like people are offering their opinions on the sources in general rather than for this specific purpose. That's well and good, but it seems worth pointing out that we're dealing with a pretty new concept (as "fake news" anyway). As such there's going to be little-to-no scholarly literature or other top tier sources providing content for a list. What we have is mainstream popular press, some prominent blogs, etc. If we're decided that we're going to have this list, we can't expect sophisticated peer reviewed IMRAD-style studies. That's not an argument to use poor sources, but that the claims about credentials and qualifications and methodologies are pointless.
Fusion.kinja.com is a Kinja site (a la Gawker, Deadspin, Gizmodo, etc.) and thus not usable for things when we have excellent sources about them, but isn't unacceptable for news about news. Buzzfeed news I put in a similar category, but while their average is probably about Kinja's average, their best is better. Christian Post seems ok for this purpose. Neurologica is written by Steven Novella, who is a pretty good source for discussion of [a particular kind of] mis/disinformation in the news. I'm not familiar with Respectful Insolence (the Science Blogs-hosted site), but would have to default to not using it. The legal document shouldn't be used to verify anything other than the details of the case. Daily Mail is a no, obviously, and Forbes contributors are, by default, a no.
Melissa Zimdars, associate professor of communications at Merrimack College, has zero qualifications that make her a reliable source on what is and what is is not fake news.
- This is what led me to comment in the first place. You say this like "My cousin Tommy, who works at McDonald's, has no qualifications to talk about fake news". Based on the sources that exist about fake news, what exactly is a "qualification that makes someone a reliable source on what is and what is [not] fake news"? How are the authors of the other sources qualified in a way that a professor of communications would not be? Her list may be fraught, but it was republished, commented on, extracts published, etc. by many reliable sources. If her original list didn't have editorial oversight, those sources did. I wouldn't cite her list directly, but I'd cite what the other publications decided to republish (even if it requires two sources minimum). As an aside, WP:ZIMFF looks to be totally inappropriate as an attack page. You made an essay about a living person not being a reliable source and then sourced it to
WND,
The Daily Caller, and Hannity? —
Rhododendrites
talk \\ 23:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
As per the discussion at Talk:List of fake news websites/Archive 4#Criteria for inclusion, Dr. Fleischman and I have a basic disagreement regarding the criteria for inclusion for List of fake news websites My criteria for inclusion are as follows:
To be included, a site must:
...and I am giving serious consideration to the idea posted here that there should be multiple reliable sources.
Dr. Fleischman's criteria for inclusion is as as follows:
I would welcome comments showing a consensus that we should have one or the other criteria for inclusion.
In addition, as can be seen at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:List of reasons why Zimdars' fake news list is itself "fake", shortly after I started removing entries from List of fake news websites that were based upon unreliable sources, Dr. Fleischman nominated an essay that I created for deletion. In that discussion, he appears to take the position that BLP protection extends to web sites containing editorial opinions. I would once again welcome comments at the MfD from those in the community who are familiar with our RS and BLP policies. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 6:39, 23 May 2017 (UTC)\
Neurologica Blog has several things that seem to make it qualifiable as a reliable source. It's run by Steven Novella, who is a degreed authority in neurology as well as a well published skeptic. The guideline states "Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications.". In Novella's case, his work in scientific skepticism has been published by the James Randi Educational Foundation, the New Haven Advocate newspaper, and he is also an editor of Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine, a peer reviewed journal. He is a Fellow at Committee for Skeptical Inquiry and at James Randi Educational Foundation. To put it another way, yes Neurologica Blog is a "blog", but its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Morty C-137 ( talk) 20:29, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Please check the following:
Source: Iran Chamber
Article: Ali Khamenei
Content:
Vigorous opposition to the government, including nonviolent and violent protest, assassinations, guerrilla activity and insurrections, was answered by state repression and terror in the early 1980s, both before and during Khamenei's presidency. Thousands of rank-and-file members of insurgent groups were killed, often by revolutionary courts. By 1982, the government announced that the courts would be reined in, although various political groups continued to be repressed by the government in the first half of the 1980s.
-- Mhhossein talk 18:58, 29 May 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.
Given the current issue with Fox News and their promotion of conspiracy theories, I think this needs to be examined. Are they unreliable? http://money.cnn.com/2017/05/23/media/fox-news-removes-seth-rich-story/index.html Morty C-137 ( talk) 20:03, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Problem is (a) they took 6 days, (b) many of their personalities (such as Hannity) are STILL pretending the story is real. And they tried to bury the retraction after hammering the story for six days.
What’s notable in that is how unapologetic the language of the retraction is—both considering the length of time the story was allowed to remain on Fox’s site, and even more especially because of the speed and the volume at which it was amplified. That’s in one way unsurprising: The story that was framed as evidence of the mainstream media’s collusion had become, in fact, evidence of the mainstream media’s restraint. The story whose subtext was the mainstream media’s inherent untrustworthiness had proven its real subtext to be the opposite.
And it took days to obtain even that terse retraction.
On Friday, a day after it first published the comments suggesting Rich’s connection to WikiLeaks—from Rod Wheeler, the former detective who had been hired by the family to investigate his death—the Fox affiliate clarified its story, writing, “What he told FOX 5 DC on camera Monday regarding Seth Rich's murder investigation is in clear contrast to what he has said over the last 48 hours. Rod Wheeler has since backtracked.”
The story on Fox remained. It retained its chorus-like status.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/05/fox-seth-rich/527850/ Morty C-137 ( talk) 20:47, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
The lesson here is that if Fox News trumpets a surprising "scoop" that is not corroborated by independent, reliable, non-partisan, credible sources, then it should not be considered "reliable enough" for inclusion until appropriately corroborated. Even more so in cases that fall under WP:BLP and WP:AVOIDVICTIM. At this point, there is really no excuse for making this kind of error of judgement a second time, and I would expect administrative responses to reflect that. MastCell Talk 22:24, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
I can accept that the recent incident at the Seth Rich article was the result of poor judgement, which is not a crime, but when I hear these kinds of ridiculous arguments comparing the Fox News conspiracy theories to reputable media reporting on the Trump/Russia allegations, then I start to worry that we're not learning anything from this episode of poor judgement. Speaking for myself, I don't think the ignorance-of-the-law excuse is going to fly a second time if there's a repeat of something like the Seth Rich incident—and that seems to be what we're talking about here, rather than a global judgement about Fox News' credibility or lack thereof. MastCell Talk 00:45, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
Anybody run across this as a source? [[PPX]] ( talk) 15:19, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
I have a question about a source for our Electromagnetic hypersensitivity article. My field is electronics engineering, so I am asking for advice from those with more medical knowledge than I have.
On the Electromagnetic hypersensitivity talk page I previously made the following comment:
I just got the following response:
The new source appears to contradict the sources I gave. Is this a reliable WP:MEDRS-compliant source, does it say what I think it says, and should the article be changed to reflect this new source? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:50, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
The Metropolitan Museum Journal, a scholarly journal published by the Metropolitan Museum of Art, is being used as the sole source to support notability of an object owned by the Museum. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Caftan (Metropolitan Museum of Art) I am not questioning the journal's status as a scholarly source. I am arguing that in order for an individual caftan, or any garment, to pass WP:GNG, there has to be a source other than a journal published by the museum that owns the garment; an WP:INDEPENDENT source. An experienced editor is arguing that such articles can be the sole source for notability on the grounds that "In the case of very large and reputable museums like the MMA, the community is rightly ready to accept that good scholarly standards are being followed." E.M.Gregory ( talk) 15:27, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
The 'raw story" is being used to support a, frankly dubious claim that Michael Connell's plane crash was intentional sabotage. Now i understand that the conspiracy theories around Connell's death might warrant at least a mention, being that its mentioned in a few places, but the edit in question states "Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged," diff. The source for this is, as i mentioned, the raw story link, which states "Without getting into specific details, 19 Action News reporter Blake Renault reported Sunday evening that 45-year-old Republican operative and experienced pilot had been warned not to fly his plane in the days before the crash.
"Connell...was apparently told by a close friend not to fly his plane because his plane might be sabotaged," Renault said. "And twice in the last two months Connell, who is an experienced pilot, cancelled two flights because of suspicious problems with his plane.""
So two questions, 1) is the raw story a reliable source in this context and if so 2) is this claim notable/well sourced enough to include in this article? Bonewah ( talk) 13:39, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
Is metro.co.uk RS? Is it the same publisher as Metro (British newspaper)? The web site is a Wordpress blog. It does not list editorial staff or policy. It seems to have "contributors" rather than journalists. It's being used as a source at Chloe Khan, a BLP. It says, without attribution and stated as a fact, that she is a "horrid person," [30] and that sounds more like opinion than news to me. Previous discussions at RSN do not directly address this question, but seem to imply it's a respectable newspaper. @ Boleyn: Kendall-K1 ( talk) 21:54, 28 May 2017 (UTC)
Videos, pictures, links, captivating stories - We'll publish the best stuff on Metro.co.uk and across the social media universe." Reliable as mud. Siuenti ( 씨유엔티) 13:35, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
Struck most of my comment - I meant the British newspaper at metro.news. Sorry I didn't check that better. Boleyn ( talk) 14:01, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
They're definitely related sites. Metro.news runs articles from "Metro’s print newspaper and from the morning and evening edition of its Digital Edition app" (according to their About page), while metro.co.uk appears to run...basically anything. Metro.news email addresses are @metro.co.uk as well. Our own article at Metro (British newspaper) links to both sites. To their credit, metro.co.uk does separate their News and Entertainment sections, which may put their News section on par with metro.news, but they're also part of DMG Media. 14:49, 29 May 2017 (UTC)
See TigerSwan#Trump Presidency. It's really not clear what Reese or TigerSwan have to do with Trump Tower. Google brought up only mirrors of the same quote and this. We don't have an independent bio article on James Reese, so the article on his company seems to be the best place for an out-of-place remark he made about Trump Tower, but... I don't know. Does this look weird to anyone else? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 11:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello.
I have posted a list of statistics, and other information links, to the talk page of the "Crime in Sweden" article:
/info/en/?search=Talk:Crime_in_Sweden#Various_statistics_that_I_have_found
I would greatly appreciate help with input regarding which of them that would be fine to incorporate into the article. Thank you. David A ( talk) 15:30, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
The amount of women in Sweden subjected to sexually related crimes went up with 70% between 2014 to 2015:
There were over 480000 sexually related crimes against women in Sweden 2015:
http://www.bra.se/download/18.37179ae158196cb1721ac8/1478089201798/2016_Utsatthet_for_brott_2015.pdf
In 1975 only 421 rapes were reported to the police in Sweden:
To compare with 5920 the year 2015:
https://www.bra.se/bra/brott-och-statistik/valdtakt-och-sexualbrott.html
According to statistics assembled by the Swedish party Folkpartiet (while they were a part of the Swedish government together with other middle- or slightly right-wing parties) with data from the official statistics institution "Statistiska Centralbyrån" there were 155 criminal areas in the country in 2012, to compare with only 3 in 1990, and according to data similarly assembled by the economist Tino Sanandaji, there were 186 in 2014. The standards were apparently later changed to only include 55 such areas according to the Swedish police department (while the Green Party and the Social Democrats were in power instead):
http://www.dnv.se/nyheter/ny-rapport-utanforskapets-karta-en-uppfoljning-av-folkpartiets-rapportserie/ David A ( talk) 03:37, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
spend much of the rest of my free time reading horrifying news about existential threats to human civilisation, and the disintegration of all social institutions in our countryand "
feel like I have a moral responsibility to help inform the public about the horrible situation in this country" and you "
get extremely frustrated and depressed when there seem to be collaborative efforts to sweep all reliable statistics under the carpet. Not just in Wikipedia, but in society as a whole" ( [31], [32]). You've railed about "
POV-pushing systemic censorship" on Wikipedia and think that "
Wikipedia seems to become increasingly slanted and inaccurate, and less neutral, fact-based, NPOV" and "
do not see the problem with simply supporting people who fight for causes that I believe in" ( [33], [34]; see also [35], [36], [37], [38]). You clearly have an anti-Islam POV ( [39], [40], [41]). Based on this, your comments on Crime in Sweden and Immigration to Sweden appear to be attempts to push your POV using WP:SYNTH (see [42]). Frankly, this is something worthy of ANI at this point. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:06, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Thanks for proving his point. Crime in Sweden has been going up, it has also been hushed up. Journalists are often told not to report on crime or not to mention demographics, which ironically is one reason why many Swedes are going to extreme sites for news, the mainstream news is not reporting it. At the very least, the statistics for Crime in Sweden should have the BRA data since that is pure, raw statistics. Sir Joseph (talk) 19:10, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
Crime in Sweden (in particular rape statistics) has been politicized and opinionated on for years within Sweden but probably even more so in the US and the UK, where it has become an important tool for conservatives or nationalists to argue either against immigration or the (economic/social) "Scandinavian model" in general. Due to that high politicization it is advisable if possible to restrict sourcing as much as possible to scholarly sources and stay away from various news media outlets. Foxnews seems like an obvious no-go as a source in this regard, but i'd avoid the other examples linked above (telegraph, washington post, politifact) as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 21:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a reliable secondary source about the statistics at http://www.government.se/articles/2017/02/facts-about-migration-and-crime-in-sweden/ but it don't really say what the POV pushers want it to and I think that's the root of their problem. "In general terms, violence has decreased in Sweden in the last 20 years." "Data from the Swedish Crime Survey shows that in terms of lethal violence, there has generally been a downward trend over the past 25 years." "The studies show that the majority of those suspected of crimes were born in Sweden to two Swedish-born parents. The studies also show that the vast majority of people from foreign backgrounds are not suspected of any crimes." "researchers at Stockholm University showed that the main difference in terms of criminal activity between immigrants and others in the population was due to differences in the socioeconomic conditions in which they grew up in Sweden." "Swedish government agencies have nothing to gain from covering up statistics and facts; they seek an open and fact-based dialogue. Sweden is an open society governed by a principle of public access to official documents." "The Swedish economy is strong. Despite the high costs of immigration, Sweden recorded a public finance surplus in 2015, and the forecasts indicate that the surplus is set to grow until 2020." // Liftarn ( talk) 06:36, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyway, getting away from inaccurate insults towards me personally, and focusing on the main issue, I have found various major newspapers that refer to the growth from 3 to 186 criminal areas:
http://www.gp.se/ledare/eberhard-skilj-p%C3%A5-%C3%A4pplen-och-p%C3%A4ron-1.3489555
https://www.svd.se/det-permanenta-undantaget
https://www.svd.se/jamfor-inte-med-balkaninvandringen
http://www.expressen.se/ledare/patrik-kronqvist/sverige-har-inte-stangt-gransen/
https://www.svd.se/hur-ska-det-ga-for-nasta-miljon David A ( talk) 12:30, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=110&artikel=5900362
http://www.vlt.se/opinion/ledare/sakine-madon-braka-garna-liberaler-men-tank-ocksa-efter
http://sla.se/debatt/2017/02/28/var-har-anna-sandstrom-varit-de
https://www.svd.se/sveriges-resa-fran-kris-till-nostalgi
http://norran.se/nyheter/kommun/utanforskapsomraden-fortsatter-att-oka-211380
http://www.barometern.se/ledare/arvet-efter-sahlin-och-ullenhag/
https://www.dagenssamhalle.se/debatt/svensk-migrationspolitik-bygger-pa-mps-fantasier-11141 David A ( talk) 20:13, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
Would it be acceptable if I simply insert that Tino Sanandaji's bestselling "Massutmaning" book refers to his own study, as well as that of Folkpartiet? David A ( talk) 12:54, 27 May 2017 (UTC)
Here are various newspaper articles that discuss the book:
http://www.expressen.se/kultur/sakligt-av-sanandaji-om-invandringens-pris/
http://www.gp.se/ledare/en-massutmaning-i-vardande-1.4148629
http://www.aftonbladet.se/kultur/bokrecensioner/a/dABpA/inslappta--men-utestangda
https://nyheteridag.se/tino-sanandajis-bok-massutmaning-etta-pa-topplistorna/
http://www.norrteljetidning.se/opinion/ledare/en-massutmaning-att-gora-alla-delaktiga
http://www.expressen.se/ledare/anna-dahlberg/lofven-borde-akta-sig-for-alternativa-fakta/
http://www.gp.se/ledare/teodorescu-censur-h%C3%B6r-inte-hemma-p%C3%A5-biblioteken-1.4165434
http://www.gp.se/ledare/bostr%C3%B6m-ett-svenskt-moraliskt-misslyckande-1.4169699
http://www.expressen.se/nyheter/sprickan-om-invandrare-och-brottsligheten/
http://www.expressen.se/debatt/lamna-inte-migrationsfragan-till-extremisterna/
http://www.dagen.se/kronikor/eli-gondor-en-milstolpe-i-debatten-om-invandring-1.953971
http://www.dagbladet.no/kultur/det-innvandringsdebatten-ikke-handler-om/67388785
http://www.gp.se/ledare/teodorescu-kinberg-batra-en-symbol-f%C3%B6r-reinfeldt-1.4194157
http://www.kristianstadsbladet.se/ledare/karin-pihl-bort-med-flosklerna-i-integrationspolitiken/
David A ( talk) 15:45, 30 May 2017 (UTC)
"År 1990 var endast tre bostadsområden utanförskapsområden, definierat med denna metod. Dessa var Marielund i Haparanda, Södra Rosengård i Malmö samt bostadsområdet Ryd i Linköping. De senare två är fortfarande utanförskapsom råden. Antalet utanförskapsområden fortsatte att öka mellan 2006 och 2012. År 2006 hade 156 bostadsområden så stora socioekonomiska problem att de definierades som utanförskapsområden. År 2012 hade antalet ökat till 186 bostadsområden, vilka finns markerade i Figur 4. Antalet boende i utanförskapsområdena uppgick till ungefär 488 tusen personer år 2006 och 566 tusen personer år 2012. Av landets befolkning levde 5,4 procent i utanförskapsområden år 2006, vilket ökade till 5,9 procent år 2012. En signifikant andel av de boende är andra generationens invandrare, alltså inrikes födda barn till utrikes födda föräldrar. Endast 26 procent av de boende i utanförskapsområdena år 2006 respektive 25 procent av de boende år 2012 hade svensk bakgrund, definierat som inrikes född med två inrikes födda föräldrar. År 2012 var 175 av 186 utanförskapsområden mer invandrartäta än riksgenom snittet. Det finns dock några utanförskapsområden med låg eller medelhög andel utrikes födda, ofta i bruksorter och glesbygd - till exempel bostadsområdena Bojsenburg i Falun och Vasastaden i Arboga."
"Dagen efter att min rapport publicerades släppte Folkpartiet (2014) för första gången på sex år en uppdaterad version av Utanförskapets karta. Antalet utanförskapsområden var 156 år 2006 enligt bägge rapporterna. Båda undersökte dessutom förändringen till och med år 2012. Trots samma metod och underlag från SCB blev slutsatserna märkligt nog inte desamma. Jag kom fram till att antalet utanförskapsområden under Alliansregeringen fortsatte att öka från 156 till 186. Folkpartiet menade att den uppåtgående trenden hade brutits och att antalet utanförskapsområden i stället sjunkit något till 155. Svenska Dagbladets ledarsida riktade kritik mot Folkpartiet för att de inte gjort sina beräkningar för år 2012 jämförbara med dem för år 2006, och för att de sedan drar slutsatser från två ojämförbara kalkyler (2014a):
Det är inte hederligt, och det förhindrar saklig debatt om hur vi ska komma tillrätta med utanförskapet. Kulmen på debatten kom efter ytterligare några dagar när en krönika av rappor tens upphovsperson Mauricio Rojas publicerades på SvD:s ledarplats (2014c): I oktober 2006 fick partiet ansvaret för integrationsfrågan, men av många djärva idéer och förslag blev det inte mycket. Berget födde en råtta, och utslagningen bara fortsatte. Detta visste partiets ledning och det blev inga nya kartor. Många efterfrågade en aktualisering av kartorna och tankesmedjan Den Nya Välfärden lät nationalekonomen Tino Sanandaji göra det. Han använde samma metod och underlag som vid tidigare kartor och kom fram till att utanförska pet ökat mellan 2006 och 2012: från 156 till 186 utanförskapsområden. 2012 bodde 566 000 personer i dessa områden; en ökning med hela 16 procent från 2006. Det mest klädsamma för FP hade varit att ärligt erkänna det som alla vet: att borgerligheten inte har varit ett dugg bättre än Socialdemokraterna på detta område. Men politiken tillåter inte en sådan öppenhjärtighet. Fast jag kunde aldrig föreställa mig det som skulle hända. Några timmar efter Sanandajis rapport kom FP ut med en egen karta, som visade en helt annan bild: det hade inte alls blivit fler utanförskapsområden och befolkningsandelen i desamma var oförändrad. Förklaringen till detta är enkel: FP gjorde några subtila metodologiska ändringar och simsalabim var misslyckandet åtminstone retuscherat. Erik Ullenhag säger att man har ”förfinat metoderna” (SvD 3/6), medan andra lätt kan kalla det för manipulation, fusk eller åtminstone ohederlighet, som det stod i SvD:s ledare i måndags."
David A ( talk) 13:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Should we use the Swedish police department's estimation of 55 criminal areas instead?
https://polisen.se/Global/www%20och%20Intrapolis/Rapporter-utredningar/01%20Polisen%20nationellt/Ovriga%20rapporter-utredningar/Kriminella%20natverk%20med%20stor%20paverkan%20i%20lokalsamhallet%20Sekretesspr%2014.pdf David A ( talk) 04:37, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
Source: Hofmann liner notes in "
J.S. Bach - Cantatas, Vol.23 (BWV 10, 93, 178, 107) (CD).
Åkersberga,
Sweden:
BIS. 2003. BIS-1331. With English liner notes by
Klaus Hofmann (pp. 6–11) and
Masaaki Suzuki (p. 11){{
cite AV media}}
: CS1 maint: postscript (
link)" (A bootleg copy of these liner notes can be found by clicking the PDF link in
this old revision – the external link has since been
removed per
WP:COPYLINK)
Article: Meine Seel erhebt den Herren, BWV 10
Content:
References
Context: FAC assessment of the article. Afaik the above source has never been discussed at RSN. I recall at least one previous RSN discussion that has been negative towards using liner notes for content in articles about compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach (other article, other liner notes). In the FAC discussion it has however been pointed out that other liner notes in other Bach composition articles have been FA approved. It has been suggested to bring this to RSN to set precedent. However, I wouldn't be too worried about the "precedent" part now: can we figure it out for this article (BWV 10), with these liner notes, and for the content as listed above? Whether or not this would have any precedent value isn't a concern at this point in time. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC) Updated content §6, per current text and reference in the article. 08:24, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:Svalbard Global Seed Vault#Recent publicity over acute melting weather I have been in an interesting discussion about recent sources that reported flooding of the seed vault. At issue is whether the flooding was caused by rain and snowmelt, or whether the permafrost itself actually melted, with what looks like reasonable sources for both claims. I could use some help sorting this one out. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:22, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Interesting website: Kill or cure? Help to make sense of the Daily Mail’s ongoing effort to classify every inanimate object into those that cause cancer and those that prevent it. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 04:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
A user, Josegerman188 ( talk · contribs) has been adding the Oricon Album Chart Book to source sales in many of the Madonna articles like here. He's using the following book source: Oricon Album Chart Book: Complete Edition 1970–2005. Roppongi, Tokyo: Oricon Charts. 2006. ISBN 4-87131-077-9. however it has no page number and I cannot verify the book from online anywhere also. Obviously I cannot read Japanese. Can anyone help here with the validity of the book? Without page number I do not think we can accept it properly. — IB [ Poke ] 03:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Do other editors feel that the Crime Prevention Research Center (which is run by economist and gun control opponent John Lott) is a reliable source? Specifically, I wanted to ask about its use in the article Estimated number of guns per capita by country as reference 4, to support the claim that gun ownership in Israel is significantly higher than estimated by the Small Arms Survey. Everymorning (talk) 19:34, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
I noticed that Nyheter Idag is used as a source on articles such as Benjamin R. Teitelbaum, 2017 Uppsala rape Facebook live streaming incident and We Are Sthlm sexual assaults. Considering it's a far right [53], xenophobic [54] website I wonder if that is really OK? // Liftarn ( talk) 08:40, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
In checking something, I found that the BBC Iplayer, will soon need users to register for an account, (in addition to needing a TV license for watching TV shows on it.)
There are approx 1500 links: https://en.wikipedia.org/?target=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bbc.co.uk%2Fiplayer&title=Special%3ALinkSearch that will need to be changed over to "Progamme" page links rather than direct links to Iplayer.
In terms of needing a subscription or registration, this is a relatively minor change {{ subscription required}} already existing.Applying it to over 1500 links potentially embedded in citations is more complex.
However, It is bad practice to link directly to I-player content in citations because I-player content tends to get removed after 7-30 days, creating dead links, whereas specifc "Programme" pages tend to be somewhat more persistent. I also note there is a specific cite template for citing episodes and AV material which can be utilised in preference to directly linking the Iplayer content.
Unless there were objections, it was planned to suggest the removal of direct links to Iplayer content in the next few weeks.
Feedback is however sought prior to doing this as it would need some technical assistance to remove over 1500 links from Wikipedia in a clean manner. ShakespeareFan00 ( talk) 19:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelly Cass, User:Keybeeny stated that it is "a fraudulent, bot-created website [...] which gathers information from Social Media". Spot-checking a few articles on that site, I do not see any references or other sources. I don't see any sitewide "about" page either. The footer states "Contents published by users are under Creative Commons License." but I can't tell whether the articles are that user-generated content vs there being some user reponse area for articles written by the site itself. It's currently used for about 35 cites, including (by spot-check) BLP biographical information, and information that is cited (or presumably could be cited) to elsewhere as well. Does anyone feel that this site is a viable ref...for BLP, or at all? DMacks ( talk) 18:54, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
I have not heard of Pacific Wrecks before and don't know if they'd be considered a reliable source. Although there is a People page, I cannot find information about who runs the site, whether any of these people write for the site, the degree of editorial control, etc. There were three links added to the article:
Would this be considered a reliable site for this sort of information?
Thank you!– CaroleHenson ( talk) 00:39, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
Is a subject's official Twitter feed considered a reliable source for confirming biographical facts? The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 02:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
I know that much of what's on Bloomberg is...well, what is it? User-submitted? I'm thinking of all those executive and company profiles, either written by the company's PR department or by the advertisement editor at Bloomberg--stuff like this, which finds its way into Wikipedia too easily (in this case, in Arthur Rubinfeld). But I also saw this, "CEOs of Tomorrow", which looks no more reliable. Any of you know your Bloomberg inside and out? Drmies ( talk) 15:02, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Several times now I have linked to a study which showed that for medical news, virtually every publication relies on press releases (including outright copying of the press release!). The same is true of "business news", I fear. The number of actual "reporters" has fallen steadily over the years, and many of the "star reporters" do their best to appear as actors in the story. In my opinion, the current wording of
WP:RS is wishful thinking on the part of Wikipedia editors.
Collect (
talk) 23:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
Question about an article I wrote on the book, The Plot to Hack America:
It is in "Amazon Best Sellers" lists, can I cite those as sources for the article?
If not, no problems, and thank you for your help ! Sagecandor ( talk) 10:46, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
See the guideline here. Amazon's charts are a single-vendor list and thus not really useable, especially when spliced into sub-categories (people who know what they're doing have no trouble turning their own books into "amazon bestsellers.") Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:06, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
See [58], Special:Permalink/783867320#Edit_request and [59] (talk page space in this case). Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 04:49, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
It seems to me that the editor who posted those links made good faith attempts to make easy to determine that a source is unreliable. I have looked at what links to the RFC page, hoping that there is an easier way then searching teahouse and rsn archives to determine if a source should be avoided. Of interest are WP:IRS (only a footnote mention), WP:PUS (an essay that seems better, although probably unofficial, it clearly includes it). Perhaps that an effort to come up with a more official guideline page (inspired or evolved from WP:PUS), and/or pointing to WP:PUS more prominently would be a good idea? We have a spam-links blacklist, but this is obviously different. Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 02:56, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
"Reliable sources Noticeboard:Daily Mail RfC". Wikipedia. 8 February 2017. Retrieved 6 June 2017.. Posting the WP:DAILYMAIL link in the article Daily Mail to "inform editors" is absolutely not OK. That is not what mainspace is for. Jytdog ( talk) 17:31, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
My questions may have been unclearly formulated, there were multiple questions, making it confusing to link answers to questions. My impression is that WP:PUS (or an equivalent) could be easier to find than it is. An example may be the header text we have at this WP:RSN (which points to WP:IRS for instance). WP:IRS itself links to WP:PUS but it's a needle in a haystack of essays. I'm not suggesting to link to WP:DAILYMAIL in the Daily Mail article or on that article's talk page. Only to make it easier to find WP:PUS or an equivalent instead of needing to search the boards or WP space to find this RFC. I'll present this again as distinct questions:
Thanks, — Paleo Neonate - 03:04, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
After reading about how Fox News negligently published fake news in April, I went back and found the Fox News story in question. What is interesting about this now-retracted source is that its purported "author" wasn't an individual, but instead was The Sun, a tabloid also owned by News Corp, Fox News' parent company.
Fox News, which we generally consider a reliable source, is publishing tabloid journalism under its own banner. (What are they thinking?!) Think about the implications of this:
(I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 17:28, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
More generally, I know what you're doing. You're playing the Jayson Blair gambit, to wit: since the New York Times has occasionally published things that later turned out to be incorrect or fabricated, it is therefore no different from [insert name of low-quality partisan source here]. This is sophistry, but I lack the patience to explain why if it's not immediately obvious to you. MastCell Talk 17:31, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
I have to resubmit a modified version of this. I am not sure why this editor is choosing to escalate this dispute the clear guidance of WP:AGE MATTERS, but clarification on this would be helpful as there appears to be a general disagreement over whether WP:AGE MATTERS applies to Christianity articles. (My position is that it especially applies because of significant advances in the field, like the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrools, and major doctrinal changes, including the rewriting of the Catechism. The vocabulary and language used by the Church has also been updated and significantly modernized, intentionally, and we can see this reflected in our modern translations of the Bible like NRSV and ESV.)
The source is question is "The moveable feasts, fasts and other annual observances of the Catholic Church".(Dublin, 1775) and the quote is "The Christian Pentecost is celebrated seven weeks or fifty days after the feast of the Lord's Resurrection." I don't think this is something we would consider WP:RS, and I have found more modern and widely cited WP:RS. I can not imagine why my effort to update the source would be reverted.
More discussion: [62] [63] [64] [65] [66]
This last comment doesn't make any sense because none of the sources suffer from WP:RECENTISM and it doesn't address all the reasons why WP:AGE MATTERS must apply to an 18th century Catholic source (including vocabulary changes, and the fact that the Catechism has been rewritten). I will likely have to file separately at dispute resolution regarding the broader reoccuring issues on this page, but I would like to get this particular WP:RS issue clarified—(I have a feeling this is a reoccurring problem in Christianity articles.)
Also, I have never posted here before, is there some kind of notification template I can use to notify editors who have been involved in the discussion?
Seraphim System ( talk) 06:31, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
vocabulary changedis an issue. Also TDNT is not tertiary, its one of the most authoritative secondary sources in the field of biblical studies, used by Bruce Metzger who supervised the NRSV English language translation of the Bible, and also worked on the Nestle-Aland Greek manuscript, and Fredrich Danker of the Bauer-Danker Lexicon, so it is a significantly stronger source for the specific language then a minor 18th century source, and my position is that it should not be replaced by a minor and dated source. Seraphim System ( talk) 08:54, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I had to check to see if the source had been superseded, while, contrary to what Andreas Philopater says above, the burden for WP:V is on those who support inclusion. That is required by WP:AGEMATTERS — "might have changed" is enough under the policy. The editor adding it needs to do this. Reading the policy again, my understanding is that its use is not a problem unless the source has been superseded. Regarding persistent misunderstandings of WP:V and WP:RS, I think maybe this is behavioral. In the future, if you want to add something, you are responsible for sourcing it adequately. If this continues as a persistent problem on the article, the next step will be dispute resolution. Seraphim System ( talk) 12:15, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe alternative sources such as this, this or this can be helpful to come out of the conundrum (I mean both as references for the article, and as outlines for a careful wording of the article text for the "number of weeks times 7" ≠ "number of days" situation)? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
The source is LSJ Lexicon from the 19th century. This is one problem with using 19th century sources—editors often make mistakes.
The source says
2. (sc. ἡμέρα), fiftieth day (after the Passover), Pentecost, LXX 2 Ma. 12.32 ; ἡ ἡμέρα τῆς Π. Act.Ap. 2.1.
Our text currently says "hēmera tēs pentēkostē" is the Greek text for Acts 2:1, but it is not. According to NA28 (the current and most widely used greek new testament) the language in Acts 2:1 is hemeran tes pentekostes — It seems the source is dated and superseded by Nestle-Aland under WP:AGE MATTERS — I would appreciate some guidance here on limiting the improper use of older sources, as it seems this will be an ongoing problem until it is clarified.
Attempts on the talk page have failed to produce cogent discussion, as editors do not agree that there have been advances in New Testament scholarship since the 19th century.
Unfortunately, it's clear from this example that the LSJ form is Dative, and the NA28 form is Accusative. This is actually a big deal, for those of us who are interested in Bible Study. Seraphim System ( talk) 19:12, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
At Talk:The_Case_for_Impeachment#Irrelevant_additions are bare hyper-links to Amazon.com acceptable sources to add to this article to say there are other books by the same title?
Is that relevant to add to this article?
Do we required secondary sources for this?
Does that violate WP:No original research ? Sagecandor ( talk) 15:49, 10 June 2017 (UTC)