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 225 | Archive 226 | Archive 227 | Archive 228 | Archive 229 | Archive 230 |
I'd argue Dancehallhiphop is not credible. It seems like a gossip site, with article titles such as "Are Jay Z & Beyonce Dropping A New Album? TIDAL 4:44 Ads Sparks Rumors", "K. Michelle Gets Roasts For Dissing Nicki Minaj and Meek Mill", and "Remy Ma Accused Of Stalking Nicki Minaj More Shots Fired". Two of the articles I'm monitoring, Slay-Z and " Chi Chi" are using this source as a reason to make massive changes to the article, which are otherwise rumored by other unreliable sources on the internet. Is this a reliable source? -- Aleccat 02:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
1. Source #1. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/muchmore.jpg
1. Source #2. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z285.jpg
2. Article. Babushka lady
3. Content. The Babushka Lady was seen to be holding a camera by eyewitnesses and was also seen in film accounts of the assassination.
Are jpg images sufficient to back-up the statement that a person was seen to be holding a camera, or is this original analysis of what is depicted? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the following reliably sourced?
She graduated in 1990 from Caesar Rodney High School located in Camden, Delaware. [1] [2]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 17:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The reliability of the following medias, regarding the recent archeogenetic study of ancient Egypt has been questioned. The reason stated was that they represent popular medias which are unreliable for scientific content and in the case of Nature Communications publication, for being a primary source.
1. Science (magazine) * [1] 2. Newsweek * [2] 3. Jerusalem Post * [3] 4. Nature (journal)* [4] 5.The peer reviewed primary source, is Nature Communications [5] used for the opening sentence.
Archaeogenetics of the Near East
"In the 2017 study published by Nature and Communication, German scientist looked at DNA from 151 mummified Egyptians, which were entombed from about 1400 BCE. to just after 400 ACE in the Roman period. The samples were studied by Schuenemann, V. J. et al and recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years, showing a genetic continuity during this time. Researchers found that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. [1]The genomes showed that, unlike modern Egyptians, ancient Egyptians had little to no genetic kinship with sub-Saharan populations, The closest genetic ties were to the peoples of ancient Near East, especially Levant, spanning parts of Turkey as well as Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. [2] [3] [4]Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians. [5]Johannes Krause, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History used next-generation sequencing methods to read stretches of DNA. Krause states that "something did alter the genomes of Egyptians." Although the mummies contain almost no DNA from sub-Saharan Africa, some 15% to 20% of modern Egyptians’ mitochondrial DNA reflects sub-Saharan ancestry. “It’s really unexpected that we see this very late shift,” Krause says. He suspects increased trade along the Nile—including the slave trade—or the spread of Islam in the Middle Ages may have intensified genetic admixture with sub-Saharan population. [6]
References
Talk page discussions: [ [6] Tritomex ( talk) 10:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If I am not wrong, Jytdog wants to exclude any mentioning of this study. Finally, if you see this article as controversial, show us reliable secondary sources that supports your position. Otherwise, WP:CONTROVERSY, does not apply here. Tritomex ( talk) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Concerns about sourcing at this article which appears to have been created as a WP:BLP attack page.
Are sources Breitbart News, NewsBusters, The Daily Caller, Infowars.com, Twitter, and the New York Post acceptable as reliable sources for controversial claims about WP:BLPs ?
Sagecandor ( talk) 13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
i would say no the sources in question are about as accurate as BuzzFeed-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 00:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Despite its reputation for factual inaccuracy (and promotion of conspiracy theories), Globalresearch.ca is cited in more than 200 Wikipedia articles. This includes several citations in articles about historical topics such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is it necessary to replace these citations, or should they be left as-is? Jarble ( talk) 20:29, 11 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 [8], xenophobic [9] website I wonder if that is really OK? // Liftarn ( talk) 11:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I was bold and removed them. // Liftarn ( talk) 13:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Originally named Baccara, the game was introduced into France from Italy at the end of the 15th-century by soldiers returning from the Franco-Italian War during the reign of Charles VIII. [1] [2] Similar games include Macao, Oicho-Kabu, and Gabo japgi. [3] [4] [5]
References
- ^ "The Academy, Volume 41 page 207". Google Books. 1892. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
- ^ Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture page 336. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
{{ cite book}}
:|website=
ignored ( help)- ^ Parlett, David. Related Face Count Games. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
- ^ von Leyden, Rudolf (1978). "The Naksha Game of Bishnupur and its implications". The Playing-Card. 6 (3): 79.
- ^ Depaulis, Thierry (2010). "Dawson's Game: Blackjack and Klondike". The Playing-Card. 38 (4): 238.
Modern card game historians like David Parlett and fr:Thierry Depaulis place the invention of baccara(t) in the 19th century as opposed to the Renaissance due to the lack of primary sources before the 19th century as they reported in the sources for the second sentence. They claim Macao as the most likely ancestor to baccarat which is well attested in the late 18th and 19th centuries. In the first source, The Academy (periodical) seems to argue for a Sicilian origin by looking for similar words appearing in dictionaries but these dictionaries make no mention of a card game as far as I can see from the small snippets in Google Books. The second source, the Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture 2nd edition, is a tertiary source that does not provide any sources. I consider modern research ( WP:AGE MATTERS) to be more reliable than these two earlier sources.-- Countakeshi ( talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Ses origines ne paraissent guère remonter au-delà du xixe siècle.. Which is to say the origins hardly seem to go back beyond the nineteenth century. That’s not very definitive [12]. I can’t find anything by David Parlett other than criticisms of other historians on the subject. Theodore Whiting states:
Circumstantial evidence seems to point to Italy as the likely source for Baccarat, where it may have appeared during the late 13th and early 14th centuries.[13]. That agrees with the current article sources. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's stick to discussing here.Coulda sworn I was discussing.:) I’m afraid I don’t see how IPCS would be considered an overriding source. I’m unable to find your other sources. The fact that some sources were unable to find earlier references would appear to show that they may be lacking. I think that we should not ignore a 19th century dictionary created by Firmin Didot, who is an historical figure himself and closer to the time period involved. Now, having said that, I have no problem in adding language that makes the claim less certain. Most of history is questionable. Objective3000 ( talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
…the game was played exclusively in aristocratic circles, which may explain why it “does not grace the realms of recorded history before the nineteenth century”.
Unsupported protestations of mythic antiquity notwithstanding, Baccara ('Baccarat' in British and Nevadan casinos) does not grace the realms of recorded history before the nineteenth century, when it became firmly entrenched in French casinos.page 81 page 82 Admitting that the origin of the game is unknown is better than perpetuating a poorly sourced claim of its 15th century origin. None of the sources you have provided tell us where they heard the legend from. The story may have been invented by Charles Van-Tenac in his 1847 Album as Whitier described. A similar situation happened with Mahjong in which Joseph Babcock concocted a tale that it was invented by Confucius.-- Countakeshi ( talk) 19:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
[17]. Both fail WP:BLP as poor sources for a BLP. Polemic and fail WP:NPOV. Sourced info was also removed. The "Guest analyst" sections should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for every negative thing said about the living person in unreliable poor sources that fail WP:BLP. Edit should be undone and source removed.
This online book review is being used to establish notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America. We have an article on this publication New York Journal of Books, and the article has secondary sourcing. The reviewers are apparently not paid. There is no indication in sources I have examined that the reviews are edited, as would be true of other book reviews. The larger question is whether a review in this Journal would meet WP:BOOKCRIT #1. Important to know because 3 reviews of a book are a usual test for keeping articles about a book at AfD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited." — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory ( talk • contribs)
Update: I just got an email response back from
New York Journal of Books. Question: Do you just let book reviewers post live whatever they want, or do all book reviews go through an editor first ? Their official response: "All professionally edited. And books to be reviewed are curated."
I've forwarded the correspondence to
WP:Contact us for confirmation. The ticket number for future reference, logging the email correspondence, is
2017061410000609.
Sagecandor (
talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The detailed discussion above about the various roles, responsibilities, and processes seems like it omits an important element of reliability. Let's say three random literature PhDs open a website tomorrow. One edits material submitted by the other two. Is it a reliable source? Well, it has editorial oversight, which is good (and I don't mean to say that doesn't matter). But also important is the reputation of that publication. With journals, we have things like an impact factor. For this, the closest thing would be evidence that other reputable publications cite its work. I saw somewhere a New Yorker citation, I think. @ Sagecandor: what is your sense of how frequently they're referenced? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I am questioning the use of ElectionLiveNews.com, specifically the page at http://electionlivenews.com/french-legislative-election-2017-national-assembly-france-results/ . This page is currently listed as an external link in French legislative election, 2017.
The problem is that ElectionLiveNews has a long table titled "French Legislative Election 2017 – Constituency Vise [sic] Results", which identifies one "Elected Member" for each constituency in the French National Assembly. However, only 4 of the 577 members have actually been elected so far. The French election is a two-round system, in which generally the top two candidates in each constituency in the first round advance to a runoff to be held one week later. (A candidate would need a majority in the first round to avoid a runoff, which is rarely achieved.) ElectionLiveNews appears to have assumed that the first place candidate from the first round is the "elected member", which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the French electoral system. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please check the discussion at Talk:Hungarians#Kniezsa's ethnic map and post your opinions on the article talk page. 123Steller ( talk) 14:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The website Washington Free Beacon looks dodgy to me, but it's cited in all seriousness in the article Michael Recanati. I've started a discussion in that article's talk page. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please remove all source material from the Washington free beacon on Michael Recanati Flamingoflorida ( talk) 00:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are generally citable as opinions. The site, in its articles of opinion, is clearly "reliable" for that use. In addition, its articles of fact appear generally to be correctly sourced, and usable as sources for claims of fact. The eternal problem in Wikipedia is editors who conflate "fact" and "opinion" sources. The desire to expunge "wrong opinions" is endemic on Wikipedia. And the worst problems of "gossip and rumour" are found even in The Guardian and The New York Times. Collect ( talk) 12:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Military History Journal ISSN 0026-4016 published by The South African Military History Society. Website http://samilitaryhistory.org/journal.html Does this journal have a generally positive reputation? I see it is cited fairly frequently in articles about South African military history. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
We of course all know that potentially unreliable sources can be quoted for the purposes of giving their own opinions (for example, we can quote a politician's statement, with clear attribution, in order to illustrate what their views on a matter are). But if reputable newspapers report something, we can state it in a more authoritative voice. With that dichotomy in mind, I'd like to ask the following question:
Let's say the CIA and NSA issue reports stating that country X has chemical weapons. Can we write, in the relevant Wikipedia article, "Country X possesses chemical weapons.[<insert citation to CIA here>][<insert citation to NSA here>]"? If we replace "CIA" and "NSA" in this example with "BBC" and "Associated Press," the answer would obviously be "yes."
I raise this issue because of the discussion here, where an admin is insisting ( diff) that US intelligence services are reliable sources, equivalent to reputable newspapers, and that they're not more equivalent to possibly unreliable politicians. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@OP: please rephrase your question if you want to continue discussing this. Your original question (whether CIA rather looks like X or like Y) has been answered: that answer is "it depends" (or variations thereof). On this noticeboard general reliability questions are only addressed if a recurring mainspace problem connected to that reliability deliberation is apparent. Perhaps start with indicating which mainspace content would be problematic if the general issue isn't resolved. Probably such issue can be addressed by the provisions in WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SELFPUB. In the event it does not, we need a more precise question. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, please. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the following reliably sourced?
Mount Athos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flag of Mount Athos
References
The Treaty of Berlin (1878) confirmed the autonomy of Mt Athos, and Greece annexed southern Macedonia, including Chalcidice, in 1913. In the same year, Mt Athos declared its independence as a monastic republic under Greece's protection. The republic adopted the crowned imperial double-headed eagle of Byzantium, rendered in black against golden background, as its flag.
It is not surprising that all symbols of Mount Athos, especially the Byzantine double-headed eagle and the Holy Virgin, who is the patron of the Holy Mount, represent old Byzantine traditions. [...] The flag of Mount Athos (Fig. 1) is golden yellow bearing the black Byzantine double-headed eagle with an imperial crown. The eagle holds in its claws an orb of black with golden bands and a black sword. The flag is ... During the millennial celebration of Mount Athos, it was often possible to see this flag flying together with the national flag of Greece on top of the government buildings in Karyes.
The state flag of Mount Athos - a black two-headed eagle...
Greek Yellow with a 2-headed Orthodox black eagle (also for Mount Church Athos)
MOUNT ATHOS Greek Hagion Oros Self-governing theocratic republic under Greek protectorate, SE Europe. STATE FLAG Date of introduction unknown. The golden yellow flag is charged with the black Byzantine eagle holding an orb and a sword in its claws. An imperial crown appears above its two heads.
-- SILENT RESIDENT 20:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's not be coy: "a certain editor" is FutPerf. In " Unreliable sources", FutPerf argues for their unreliability, I think rather convincingly. There's more than a little exasperation on both sides of the argument; but if we put annoyance and frustration aside, FutPerf makes some good points. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The point here is that some people (both Wikipedia editors and authors out there are proliferating a POV falsehood: that Mount Athos is a "state" (and as such, can be expected to have a state flag).and proved that it is useless. Dr. K. 06:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It's also no coincidence that the editors who kept pushing the flag in this article have also been the same editors that kept pushing fictitious "official names" including the word "state" or "republic" into it.I think you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:V. I did not "push" anything. I found RS which use these terms and I quoted them. You don't get to use PAs against me for bringing RS to the fore that use these terms and which you happen to disagree with. Your dismissal of RS with PAs is indicative of your POV and OR. Dr. K. 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
You display a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:OR. WP:V is not a suicide pact.You keep trying to attack me with these nonsense statements. You have nothing to teach me. As my record of producing quality articles shows, I know damn well how to find and use RS. I am currently at RSN because I want to examine the sources, since the flag area is not my specialty. If the sources make statements not supported by facts then I have no problem to reject them. However, calling Athos a "protectorate" or some other term not absolutely technically correct, should not disqualify a source immediately if the question is about the flag itself and not the exactness of the term describing the polity. However, if the editors at RSN don't agree with my position, I have no problem agreeing that the source should be dropped. Your problem is that you use PAs as soon as people don't agree with your dogma and to add insult to injury you are hellbent implying that I try to "push" these terms, which is clearly your heavy-handed method of trying to attack editors you disagree with, as your long record of documented incivility clearly shows. Dr. K. 07:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No way, Future Perfect. To have the flag moved from the infobox is basically to have what you wanted in the first place: remove the flag completely from the infobox to suit your POV. I vehemently am opposing this and I suggest you accept Cplakida's proposal which is to keep the flag but with a different caption, is a good compromise which takes in account both your concerns and everyone else's. -- SILENT RESIDENT 14:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
(preferably outside the infobox,...I think that it is ok to keep it in the infobox with a suitable caption, even referring to the two strongest RS [2] and [4] which support it as the flag of Athos. Dr. K. 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
About #2: A source that lifts its entire first paragraphs from Britannica is quite obviously not a reliable source about anything. I'm astonished at your defending such a practice.EB is a reliable source and copying EB verbatim is allowed as long as it is from the 1911 edition which is in the public domain. This practice is allowed on Wikipedia, and I am astonished you didn't know about it, although I suspect that you do but you could not resist another cheap stunt, coming after the most recent one with
(both Wikipedia editors and authors out there are proliferating a POV falsehood: that Mount Athos is a "state" (and as such, can be expected to have a state flag), a fact that was rebutted and proven to be useless and a clear useless falsification intended to smear the reputations of reputable editors here. The fact remains that The Flag Bulletin is a recognised specialist publication and a reliable source.
About #4, you seem to be over-impressed by the credentials of Mr Crampton. William Crampton was a schoolteacher of sorts with a degree in sociology and an amateur self-styled "researcher" on flags.Your self-serving analysis of Crampton's origins goes against his long career and practice as a flag expert and his international standing as an expert. Crampton, your original research notwithstanding, is an internationally-recognised expert on flags and as such his source is a reliable source.
He founded a club for his hobby-horse, which he called an "Institute". That doesn't make him, or the publications spawned by his institute, an academic authority.More manufactured original research intended to belittle Compton and the Flag Institute. Just read the article on what you call so dismissively "hobby horse" to see what an important institute it is and go to their website to check the specialist and expert flag-related work they do in the UK and internationally.
That doesn't make him, or the publications spawned by his institute, an academic authority.More pretentious academic "rigour" claptrap. You don't need to have a Ph.D. in flag-ology to determine if Mount Athos has a flag or not. That monastic state has a flag which is a fact recognised by many reliable sources specialising in flags. Mount Athos, being a primarily religious entity, is averse to creating elements associated with official statehood such as constitution, rigorous flag adoptions and descriptions etc. But its long practice of using this flag has been documented and verified by flag experts. You don't get to belittle the long practice of these flag experts, and international respect and recognition they enjoy for their work classifying and categorising flags, because of your manufactured haughty requirements of "academic rigour" for such an obvious fact, namely that Athos has a flag which by tradition and wide recognition, has become the official flag of that monastic entity. Your pretentious "academic rigour" requirements aside, this is a self-evident and RS-recognised fact. Dr. K. 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Mount Athos, being a primarily religious entity, is averse to creating elements associated with official statehood such as constitution, rigorous flag adoptions and descriptions etc.No pun intented, but I am wondering if Future Perfect, who declared himself an "Mount Athos expert", has ever been in Athos at all. The fact that he goes as far as to diminish all the reliable sources and even to demote the flag experts out there (who know more on flags than anyone here), only proves that we are dealing with a blatant POV case. The reason his POV has not found me agreeing with, is because the reality is quite different than his views. It is absolutely true that the Athonite institutions simply do not care about the outside world, nor they are going to write any constitutions just to formalize their flag and such. They are just running their monastic affairs and their monks are living their ascetic life. Nothing more, nothing less. And I am not expecting this reality to change anytime in the near future. Turning the flag and/or other Athonite descriptions or symbols into a big never-ending debate (I shall remind you it has been years since Future Perfect is stirring up this disruption about the flag), is not productive and I prefer that we spend our valuable time on other Wiki articles that could need our attention more than Mount Athos. -- SILENT RESIDENT 17:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Lifting text from a public domain source may be not illegal in terms of copyright, but it still constitutes academic plagiarism if done without acknowledgment. Lifting text from a copyrighted source, as was done here, is of course even worse.I have an EB edition from 1985 which incorporates large-scale text from EB 1911. I suspect this text may have been copied from EB 1911 to a newer edition of EB. If the editors failed to acknowledge this copy, it may have been a breach of academic plagiarism standards, but it does not automatically render the rest of their flag-related observations invalid. In any case, can you quote the actual text you are referring to? Dr. K. 20:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised to not get a single hit in RSN archives about those sites. I was looking for some policy / guide that would state clearly those are not acceptable, but I couldn't find anything. It would be good to get some input and consensus on reliability of those sources, as well as whether we allow linking to them (we have currently, in all namespaces, including article namespace, 200+ links to Cliffsnotes, almost 700 links to Sparknotes, 1800+ links to Book Rages, 250+ links to scmoop, 111 links to Schaum's Outlines, 5 links to Study Notes, 74 loinks to quizlet and no links to YorkNotes ( [34]) except its own article, which seems totally acceptable. There may be others I am not aware of, but the existence of 2-3k links to this type of websites is an issue to be discussed. As I finished my education before such websites became popular, I have little personal experience with how content is created on them, and with their reliability. They are all unsourced, but that is not a damning issue - so are most encyclopedia articles, for example, and we are fine using those. Common sense also suggests that they are roughly accurate (not necessarily representing cutting edge of literary or like scholarship, of course). Who writes them would be good to know: is this content written by librarians/teachers/instructors, non-professionals, or (that would be a red flag) user-created by students themselves? Final thought: a lot of the content on those sites is simply plot summaries, which is not something we cite anyway. But they do seem to contain at least some analysis like [35] or [36]. What should our advice be for editors (students, etc.) which would like to use those as sources - and why? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Study guides from a named person recognized in the field are certainly usable. Unfortunately, many modern study guides do not meet that criterion at all, and, in my opinion, are not usable for claims of fact. Where they are simply a précis of a book, they are likely "accurate enough," but claims of fact elude them far too often.
Collect (
talk) 15:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am not fully sue if this site is a reliable source. Please share your opinion. Thanks in advance. -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 11:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
are they getting paid by the movie industry to promote their movies if so they are probably unreliable in this context
also there is no published methodology on how they review movies
websites of a promotional nature are not acceptable to cite as a source
I Do not recommend MoviesFYI as a citation-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
From 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) recommended a low-fat vegan diet based on the "New Four Food Groups": fruit, legumes (peas, beans and lentils), grains and vegetables. The recommendation is three or more servings a day of fruit (one of them high in vitamin C, such as citrus fruit, melon or strawberries); two or more of protein-rich legumes (such as soybeans, which can be consumed as soy milk, tofu or tempeh); five or more of whole grains (corn, barley, rice and wheat in products such as bread or cereal); and four or more of vegetables.
i don't believe that an animal rights organization should be cited as a valid medical source-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 00:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been redirected here from veganism talk page, where I was attempting to obtain consensus on the deletion of PCRM material on grounds that POV and blatantly judgemental language was being used. Here I see the discussion is still being being pursued in POV language, 'a decidedly dodgy advocacy group' with no reason for sticking that label on them. And now we are being redirected to another page? I need an admin to look at all this, we are being given the runaround with POV language. TonyClarke ( talk) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The National Council Against Health Fraud has criticized PCRM as being "a propaganda machine" and the American Medical Association has called PCRM a "pseudo-physicians group" promoting possibly dangerous nutritional advice.[2][3]
Hey, I'm getting increasingly addicted to this guy's YouTube channel ( here), particularly his brilliant Lord of the Rings lecture series. I've long considered open courses from Yale, UC Berkeley and the like to be reliable sources for uncontroversial factual claims and the opinions of the lecturers themselves (who generally meet our notability guidelines anyway), but this appears to be somewhat different, as the YouTube videos themselves seem to be the result of him (or someone under his direction) placing a camera and microphone on a desk, and him (or someone under his direction) uploading it onto a YouTube channel named for him rather than, say, his institution.
Specifically, I'd like to cite his critical opinions in various articles on these subjects (in case folks haven't noticed, we've got a lot of pretty crappy articles on fictional characters, particularly those appearing in works of speculative fiction), but I'm not sure if his opinions are any more noteworthy than mine or yours since he is essentially self-publishing, at least in these instances that I can access for free and listen to on my phone while taking long walks.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force Tips, HighKing seems to be POV pushing describing what seem to be clear WP:RS as if they fail WP:ORGIND. E.g., he has insisted that this nwtimes article amounts to an announcement from the subject instead of journalism that went through the desired editorial process. He has similar complaints about this Fortune article and a machine design article-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Is Flavorwire article a reliable source to verify the public domain status of Born to Win? Hitcher vs. Candyman claims that it is at the " List of films in the public domain in the United States". -- George Ho ( talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Green Cardamom removed the entry per talk page. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia includes more than 50 citations to a fringe-theory website called Above Top Secret. Do any of these citations need to be replaced? Jarble ( talk) 01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics on current events, politics, and government wrong-doing with poignant commentary from a diverse mix of users from all over the world.It is sensationalist non-expert, non-reliably-sourced, user-generated "alternate news" and discussions. Can be entertaining, but unfit for an encyclopedia. — Paleo Neonate - 06:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Progressive Alliance about sourcing for the claim that the Democratic Party (United States) is a participant/member. [38] One of the sources is an interview in la diara with an official of the Socialist Party of Uruguay, who says, "". [39] The official says, "It was initially integrated by those who had supported the candidacy of Mona Sahlin, but then began to add valuable organizations that until now had not been in the SI, such as the Workers' Party of Brazil, and begin to weave alliances, as with the Democratic Party of the United States...Then came the idea of consolidating the Progressive Alliance as an organization."
First, I do not think it is clear that the Democratic Party's connection was the same as the other SI members and no mention of whether the party actually joined the organization. Second, interviews are not normally considered realible sources for facts.
In my opinion, this is a typical example of not finding the sources for what they think should be in the article in the usual sources, such as news reports, and settling for what they can find, however tangential to the subject. Why would someone go to an interview of a politician in Uruguay to determine whether a U.S. Party, which has received extensive coverage in all types of sources, is a member of an international group based in Europe?
TFD ( talk) 22:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I recently removed some text from this article, on the basis that the source cited described the information it was about to mention as "coming from a book with no "pretension to objectivity or scholarship". So we were citing a seemingly reliable source talking about an unreliable source. My view is that unreliable material has no verification and should not be in Wikipedia, because of WP:V.
I've been reverted by Truth be toad (great username, by the way) on the basis "The author cites a book with a specific Muslim criticism/view relevant to the article." I have no difficulty in a Muslim perspective being included, but if it is to state that such a perspective is something inflammatory like this is one of the "ridiculous stories of the Bible", it needs proper sourcing.
Not interested in edit-warring, so posting here for your views. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Aquillion my problem is using an unreliable source for anything is bad, and using it to cite something being described as the Muslim perspective on "a ridiculous story" in the Bible is really problematic. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned! 09:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@
Dweller: Cheers for complementing my username.
@
StarryGrandma: You said: "Sections like these look like editors using Google books to find negative phrases about a religious concept and using them as sources, without paying much attention to what the source actually says." I agree with everything you said until that damned comma.
Truth be toad (
talk) 03:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel that Science Alert [40] should be considered credible for scientific matters. The homepage is full of clickbait; two headlines include "Anonymous Says NASA Is About to Announce Evidence of Alien Life" and "Finally Read Your Phone in The Sun Thanks to The Power of Moths' Eyes".
The source has been briefly discussed on this board [41] but not in detail. I recently removed a reference I considered dubious in the water article. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I have recently got into an edit war (that I have stopped in the meantime) with user Tuvixer when I tried to add polls made by 2x1 komunikacije, which were the only one to correctly predict the winner of the election. The polls are usually published on direktno.hr portal (for example: http://direktno.hr/direkt/anketa-2x1-komunikacije-hdz-biljezi-pad-popularnosti-most-i-hns-narasli-81673/ ), but are also mentioned in other media:
Our whole discussion can be seen at Talk:Croatian presidential election, 2014–15. Also, I saw that he reverted all mentions of the said survey in Next Croatian parliamentary election article (I HAVE NOT edited that article at all), without even discussing it, and even changing the introduction to include only polls published by TV chanells (see here: [42]). He described direktno.hr as "right wing antisemitic and pro fascist tabloid" and told me to "stop citing them". While I can't deny them being slightly to the right, they are far from being extreme. Their workers include Davor Gjenero (independent liberal, also works with Al Jazeera and is a frequent guest on HRT - national TV), Tomislav Marčinko (centre-right, worked on national TV and is one of the founders of NovaTV - one of three major TV houses in Croatia), Gordan Malić (also often a guest in other media) and other journalists and analysts with experience in major newspapers and TV houses. What I am trying to prove is that the polls from 2x1 komunikacije should be included, as they are frequently cited by other portals and newspapers and not only direktno.hr. Tuxiver provided two main "sources" against the polling agency:
So, I am kindly asking the members here to state their opinion on the polling agency. StjepanHR ( talk) 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If two sources are both considered reliable, and due to policy we can only list one, do we only list the source that is the "industry standard"? Something similar is happening here. SharkD Talk 14:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this an RS please? Zigzig20s ( talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not writing about a particular content dispute; rather, I'm hoping to solicit thoughtful feedback on an issue that has come up a several times recently: whether articles by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post (archive here) are generally reliable for the facts they contain. Of course WaPo is by and large quite reliable, and WP:NEWSBLOG suggests that Wemple's pieces shouldn't be deemed unreliable simply because they're part of what WaPo calls a "blog," but the problem here is that WaPo at least formally categorizes his work as opinion, but it often contains what appears to be factual, investigative reporting in addition to commentary. Every article written by Wemple (e.g. [52]) is designated as "Opinion" but says in Wemple's byline, "Erik Wemple writes the Erik Wemple blog, where he reports and opines on media organizations of all sorts.") To me, the fact that WaPo designated Wemple's blog as "opinion" suggests that it's held to a lower standard of review by the editorial staff--but how low?
Another, closely related issue here is whether Wemple's pieces can be used as indication of a Wikipedia article's notability. Wemple often spotlights media issues that haven't received a lot of public attention, so this issue can be pivotal in whether a media organization or journalist merits a Wikipedia article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:50, 26 June 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.
After a comment here, a discussion opened here and a suggestion here, I removed an external link from Wikipedia's mainspace per WP:ELNEVER. Later I was criticised for that decision ("... eliminated links to the site ...").
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)Is there a way to retain the external link in the article? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I meant to add to my previous comment but don't want to disturb the chronology. We should not talk about one specific link in one article, discussing one specific action, but clarify that Bach Cantatas Website can be used as an external link and even as a reference. It has been used in 2005, random example BWV 6 ("Various comments on the piece", one of three external links), it is used in the same article today as a reference, and in hundreds of other articles on cantatas, hymns, biographies, discographies, - just not in BWV 10. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Oron references in these articles could probably use some scrutiny. BWV 208 and 248 are examples of fairly extended articles, not GA or FA or so, but showing that a lot can be covered with a wide variety of other references. Not retained in the list above: articles only containing links to "chorale melody" pages at the Bach Cantatas Website (these don't seem problematic to me while generally only containing public domain data). Also not listed: pages that link to the Bach Cantatas Website from the external links section only (not this noticeboard). Can we agree on a coordinated approach, for instance Gerda Arendt checking FA articles from the above list they were involved in, or start with re-linking Bach Pilgrimage liner notes to the SDG website if possible, etc. – don't want to propose a time-schedule yet, there is no deadline I suppose? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Expanded and updated 16:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Always thought BC site an excellent source, an authority on Bach related topics, so much that I even began a missing article list from it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Two observations: not linking to a page does not prevent us from using it as a reference if it turns out to be reliable – there's no requirement to link a ref; and the simplest way to find out if the suspected copyvio content is hosted with permission is probably to write and ask. Oh, and if anyone wants add a citation for a chorale melody, they need only give the relevant page number in Riemenschneider. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a side-aspect but it came up in previous talk, and I saw a wide variety of formats when doing my checks yesterday. Acceptable formats to refer to the website (in mainspace I mean, not talking about short formats used in talk) are imho:
I have a slight preference for the first. When capitalised, without hyphens, "Website" should be the last word, not just "Bach Cantatas" while that could refer to almost any collection of Bach Cantatas. With a hyphen: best to use lower case I suppose, and always add ".com" to make clear one is referring to a website. Wouldn't italicise either expression, I don't think we do that for website names. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Above it was contended "I am rather sure that the record labels know about the presentation of their liner notes" – afaics it isn't even all that relevant whether the record labels know. E.g. the Klaus Hofmann liner notes used as a reference in the BWV 10 article are published by the BIS record label. The text, as printed, ends with:
In the case BIS would write a letter to Mr. Oron asking to take down the copyrighted text, Mr. Oron would feel under no obligation to do so (see http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Copyright-Policy.htm – BIS can not act "on behalf" of the copyright owner, BIS is only a licensee allowed to publish a text of which the copyright is "owned" by the author)
This approach is very different from Wikipedia's: it is no secret that if in Wikipedia something is encountered that "looks like" something found outside Wikipedia, without clear attribution of where the Wikipedia contributor found it and/or without clear notice that its copyright is cleared, the possibly copyright-infringing material is removed first: questions can be asked later, and the material can be brought back if a sufficient clearance is obtained.
In Wikipedia any contributor can place a {{ copyvio}} template, and admins will act on it, including the deletion of possibly copyright-infringing earlier page revisions. For media files the procedure is often even simpler: if you upload an image without clear copyright statement admins will routinely act by complete removal of the questionable content from the site. No jumping through hoops as at the Bach Cantatas Website: if you are not the copyright owner or their legal representative, writing a letter complying to a list of formalisms, the copyrighted text can linger on that website forever. In Wikipedia a text or image copyrighted elsewhere can only be retained if any of the following applies, and, in each case, with a clear attribution of what applies:
In general the way copyrights are handled at the Bach Cantatas Website rather resemble YouTube copyright provisions (as someone alluded to above), which whatever way it is turned is a site Wikipedia considers "not reliable *unless* some pretty tough conditions are met", and that can only clear one page at a time (never the entire website). Yet, with all its strict copyright handling, Wikipedia does still not consider itself reliable. So I'd like to compare to another site I've used quite often in references on various Wikipedia pages:
Concluding, I'd say that the way copyrights are handled on M. Oron's site is fundamentally incompatible with the care Wikipedia displays towards copyrighted material. A careful handling of copyrights can be found on The LiederNet Archive website, which I used as an example above, and that is what makes this website copyright-wise generally (as opposed to exceptionally) acceptable to link to from Wikipedia. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we summarize this subsection by saying that links to copyrighted material on the bach-cantatas.com website were never allowed (per WP:ELNEVER), and that that standard will be upheld in Wikipedia from now on?
Further, I'd like to return to the topic I mentioned higher up: how are we going to take this up practically? I'd deplore a blunt removal of mainspace content currently referenced to the bach-cantatas.com website. Hundreds of articles are affected if we no longer consider that website a generally reliable source.
I propose we cooperate: maybe in a first pass check which content can be safely referenced to the site. For Lutheran hymn related material I suppose content and references can often be vetted "as is" for the time being. At least that seems less urgent to remedy. For the liner notes there seem to be chiefly two types that are most often used:
For the discographies a "light" solution would be to provide the record companies' reference code of the recording, in which case another reference (like the bach-cantatas.com discography page) is no longer needed. A bit more work is to provide OCLC numbers, BnF references, and other kinds of librarian's resources. Some data in the discography lists can not be confirmed by these sources: these should probably better be pruned than kept with a reference to the bach-cantatas website.
As for timing: I'd address these issues in FA articles first, then GA articles, etc, ... until also the start class articles have been checked. This may take months (or more). Who is in on such scheme to address the issues that are probably going to result from this RSN? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where to put an observation, so start a new header: Among the "reliable sources" left in the article is the Bach Cantata Page by the University of Alberta, https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/10.html. At the bottom, it links to the Bach Cantatas Website. If that respected source links to it, why should we not do the same? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about replacing reference 7 in Johnny Ace (which is a dead link [56]) with another source that verifies the quote currently attributed to it; specifically, this book, published in 2011 by RosettaBooks. (The quote can be found here) Do other editors consider it to be a reliable enough source? This publisher doesn't have a WP page and they seem to be digital-only, but on the other hand, they don't seem to be a self-publishing company. Everymorning (talk) 20:02, 30 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 225 | Archive 226 | Archive 227 | Archive 228 | Archive 229 | Archive 230 |
I'd argue Dancehallhiphop is not credible. It seems like a gossip site, with article titles such as "Are Jay Z & Beyonce Dropping A New Album? TIDAL 4:44 Ads Sparks Rumors", "K. Michelle Gets Roasts For Dissing Nicki Minaj and Meek Mill", and "Remy Ma Accused Of Stalking Nicki Minaj More Shots Fired". Two of the articles I'm monitoring, Slay-Z and " Chi Chi" are using this source as a reason to make massive changes to the article, which are otherwise rumored by other unreliable sources on the internet. Is this a reliable source? -- Aleccat 02:08, 8 June 2017 (UTC)
1. Source #1. http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/muchmore.jpg
1. Source #2. http://www.assassinationresearch.com/zfilm/z285.jpg
2. Article. Babushka lady
3. Content. The Babushka Lady was seen to be holding a camera by eyewitnesses and was also seen in film accounts of the assassination.
Are jpg images sufficient to back-up the statement that a person was seen to be holding a camera, or is this original analysis of what is depicted? Thanks! - Location ( talk) 22:30, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the following reliably sourced?
She graduated in 1990 from Caesar Rodney High School located in Camden, Delaware. [1] [2]
References
-- Jytdog ( talk) 17:31, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
The reliability of the following medias, regarding the recent archeogenetic study of ancient Egypt has been questioned. The reason stated was that they represent popular medias which are unreliable for scientific content and in the case of Nature Communications publication, for being a primary source.
1. Science (magazine) * [1] 2. Newsweek * [2] 3. Jerusalem Post * [3] 4. Nature (journal)* [4] 5.The peer reviewed primary source, is Nature Communications [5] used for the opening sentence.
Archaeogenetics of the Near East
"In the 2017 study published by Nature and Communication, German scientist looked at DNA from 151 mummified Egyptians, which were entombed from about 1400 BCE. to just after 400 ACE in the Roman period. The samples were studied by Schuenemann, V. J. et al and recovered from Middle Egypt span around 1,300 years, showing a genetic continuity during this time. Researchers found that ancient Egyptians shared more ancestry with Near Easterners than present-day Egyptians, who received additional sub-Saharan admixture in more recent times. [1]The genomes showed that, unlike modern Egyptians, ancient Egyptians had little to no genetic kinship with sub-Saharan populations, The closest genetic ties were to the peoples of ancient Near East, especially Levant, spanning parts of Turkey as well as Israel, Jordan, Syria and Lebanon. [2] [3] [4]Strikingly, the mummies were more closely related to ancient Europeans and Anatolians than to modern Egyptians. [5]Johannes Krause, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for the Science of Human History used next-generation sequencing methods to read stretches of DNA. Krause states that "something did alter the genomes of Egyptians." Although the mummies contain almost no DNA from sub-Saharan Africa, some 15% to 20% of modern Egyptians’ mitochondrial DNA reflects sub-Saharan ancestry. “It’s really unexpected that we see this very late shift,” Krause says. He suspects increased trade along the Nile—including the slave trade—or the spread of Islam in the Middle Ages may have intensified genetic admixture with sub-Saharan population. [6]
References
Talk page discussions: [ [6] Tritomex ( talk) 10:26, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
If I am not wrong, Jytdog wants to exclude any mentioning of this study. Finally, if you see this article as controversial, show us reliable secondary sources that supports your position. Otherwise, WP:CONTROVERSY, does not apply here. Tritomex ( talk) 14:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
Concerns about sourcing at this article which appears to have been created as a WP:BLP attack page.
Are sources Breitbart News, NewsBusters, The Daily Caller, Infowars.com, Twitter, and the New York Post acceptable as reliable sources for controversial claims about WP:BLPs ?
Sagecandor ( talk) 13:23, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
i would say no the sources in question are about as accurate as BuzzFeed-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 00:59, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Despite its reputation for factual inaccuracy (and promotion of conspiracy theories), Globalresearch.ca is cited in more than 200 Wikipedia articles. This includes several citations in articles about historical topics such as the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is it necessary to replace these citations, or should they be left as-is? Jarble ( talk) 20:29, 11 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 [8], xenophobic [9] website I wonder if that is really OK? // Liftarn ( talk) 11:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
OK, I was bold and removed them. // Liftarn ( talk) 13:23, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Originally named Baccara, the game was introduced into France from Italy at the end of the 15th-century by soldiers returning from the Franco-Italian War during the reign of Charles VIII. [1] [2] Similar games include Macao, Oicho-Kabu, and Gabo japgi. [3] [4] [5]
References
- ^ "The Academy, Volume 41 page 207". Google Books. 1892. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
- ^ Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture page 336. Retrieved 23 March 2017.
{{ cite book}}
:|website=
ignored ( help)- ^ Parlett, David. Related Face Count Games. Retrieved 22 October 2015.
- ^ von Leyden, Rudolf (1978). "The Naksha Game of Bishnupur and its implications". The Playing-Card. 6 (3): 79.
- ^ Depaulis, Thierry (2010). "Dawson's Game: Blackjack and Klondike". The Playing-Card. 38 (4): 238.
Modern card game historians like David Parlett and fr:Thierry Depaulis place the invention of baccara(t) in the 19th century as opposed to the Renaissance due to the lack of primary sources before the 19th century as they reported in the sources for the second sentence. They claim Macao as the most likely ancestor to baccarat which is well attested in the late 18th and 19th centuries. In the first source, The Academy (periodical) seems to argue for a Sicilian origin by looking for similar words appearing in dictionaries but these dictionaries make no mention of a card game as far as I can see from the small snippets in Google Books. The second source, the Dictionnaire de la conversation et de la lecture 2nd edition, is a tertiary source that does not provide any sources. I consider modern research ( WP:AGE MATTERS) to be more reliable than these two earlier sources.-- Countakeshi ( talk) 17:13, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Ses origines ne paraissent guère remonter au-delà du xixe siècle.. Which is to say the origins hardly seem to go back beyond the nineteenth century. That’s not very definitive [12]. I can’t find anything by David Parlett other than criticisms of other historians on the subject. Theodore Whiting states:
Circumstantial evidence seems to point to Italy as the likely source for Baccarat, where it may have appeared during the late 13th and early 14th centuries.[13]. That agrees with the current article sources. Objective3000 ( talk) 17:43, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's stick to discussing here.Coulda sworn I was discussing.:) I’m afraid I don’t see how IPCS would be considered an overriding source. I’m unable to find your other sources. The fact that some sources were unable to find earlier references would appear to show that they may be lacking. I think that we should not ignore a 19th century dictionary created by Firmin Didot, who is an historical figure himself and closer to the time period involved. Now, having said that, I have no problem in adding language that makes the claim less certain. Most of history is questionable. Objective3000 ( talk) 00:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
…the game was played exclusively in aristocratic circles, which may explain why it “does not grace the realms of recorded history before the nineteenth century”.
Unsupported protestations of mythic antiquity notwithstanding, Baccara ('Baccarat' in British and Nevadan casinos) does not grace the realms of recorded history before the nineteenth century, when it became firmly entrenched in French casinos.page 81 page 82 Admitting that the origin of the game is unknown is better than perpetuating a poorly sourced claim of its 15th century origin. None of the sources you have provided tell us where they heard the legend from. The story may have been invented by Charles Van-Tenac in his 1847 Album as Whitier described. A similar situation happened with Mahjong in which Joseph Babcock concocted a tale that it was invented by Confucius.-- Countakeshi ( talk) 19:42, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
[17]. Both fail WP:BLP as poor sources for a BLP. Polemic and fail WP:NPOV. Sourced info was also removed. The "Guest analyst" sections should not be used as a WP:COATRACK for every negative thing said about the living person in unreliable poor sources that fail WP:BLP. Edit should be undone and source removed.
This online book review is being used to establish notability at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Plot to Hack America. We have an article on this publication New York Journal of Books, and the article has secondary sourcing. The reviewers are apparently not paid. There is no indication in sources I have examined that the reviews are edited, as would be true of other book reviews. The larger question is whether a review in this Journal would meet WP:BOOKCRIT #1. Important to know because 3 reviews of a book are a usual test for keeping articles about a book at AfD. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 19:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
The term "published" is most commonly associated with text materials, either in traditional printed format or online. However, audio, video, and multimedia materials that have been recorded then broadcast, distributed, or archived by a reputable party may also meet the necessary criteria to be considered reliable sources. Like text sources, media sources must be produced by a reliable third party and be properly cited." — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory ( talk • contribs)
Update: I just got an email response back from
New York Journal of Books. Question: Do you just let book reviewers post live whatever they want, or do all book reviews go through an editor first ? Their official response: "All professionally edited. And books to be reviewed are curated."
I've forwarded the correspondence to
WP:Contact us for confirmation. The ticket number for future reference, logging the email correspondence, is
2017061410000609.
Sagecandor (
talk) 00:54, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The detailed discussion above about the various roles, responsibilities, and processes seems like it omits an important element of reliability. Let's say three random literature PhDs open a website tomorrow. One edits material submitted by the other two. Is it a reliable source? Well, it has editorial oversight, which is good (and I don't mean to say that doesn't matter). But also important is the reputation of that publication. With journals, we have things like an impact factor. For this, the closest thing would be evidence that other reputable publications cite its work. I saw somewhere a New Yorker citation, I think. @ Sagecandor: what is your sense of how frequently they're referenced? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 01:11, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
I am questioning the use of ElectionLiveNews.com, specifically the page at http://electionlivenews.com/french-legislative-election-2017-national-assembly-france-results/ . This page is currently listed as an external link in French legislative election, 2017.
The problem is that ElectionLiveNews has a long table titled "French Legislative Election 2017 – Constituency Vise [sic] Results", which identifies one "Elected Member" for each constituency in the French National Assembly. However, only 4 of the 577 members have actually been elected so far. The French election is a two-round system, in which generally the top two candidates in each constituency in the first round advance to a runoff to be held one week later. (A candidate would need a majority in the first round to avoid a runoff, which is rarely achieved.) ElectionLiveNews appears to have assumed that the first place candidate from the first round is the "elected member", which demonstrates a lack of understanding of the French electoral system. -- Metropolitan90 (talk) 13:56, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Please check the discussion at Talk:Hungarians#Kniezsa's ethnic map and post your opinions on the article talk page. 123Steller ( talk) 14:39, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
The website Washington Free Beacon looks dodgy to me, but it's cited in all seriousness in the article Michael Recanati. I've started a discussion in that article's talk page. -- Hoary ( talk) 05:54, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Can someone please remove all source material from the Washington free beacon on Michael Recanati Flamingoflorida ( talk) 00:14, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Opinions are generally citable as opinions. The site, in its articles of opinion, is clearly "reliable" for that use. In addition, its articles of fact appear generally to be correctly sourced, and usable as sources for claims of fact. The eternal problem in Wikipedia is editors who conflate "fact" and "opinion" sources. The desire to expunge "wrong opinions" is endemic on Wikipedia. And the worst problems of "gossip and rumour" are found even in The Guardian and The New York Times. Collect ( talk) 12:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
Military History Journal ISSN 0026-4016 published by The South African Military History Society. Website http://samilitaryhistory.org/journal.html Does this journal have a generally positive reputation? I see it is cited fairly frequently in articles about South African military history. Roger (Dodger67) ( talk) 10:00, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
We of course all know that potentially unreliable sources can be quoted for the purposes of giving their own opinions (for example, we can quote a politician's statement, with clear attribution, in order to illustrate what their views on a matter are). But if reputable newspapers report something, we can state it in a more authoritative voice. With that dichotomy in mind, I'd like to ask the following question:
Let's say the CIA and NSA issue reports stating that country X has chemical weapons. Can we write, in the relevant Wikipedia article, "Country X possesses chemical weapons.[<insert citation to CIA here>][<insert citation to NSA here>]"? If we replace "CIA" and "NSA" in this example with "BBC" and "Associated Press," the answer would obviously be "yes."
I raise this issue because of the discussion here, where an admin is insisting ( diff) that US intelligence services are reliable sources, equivalent to reputable newspapers, and that they're not more equivalent to possibly unreliable politicians. - Thucydides411 ( talk) 10:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
@OP: please rephrase your question if you want to continue discussing this. Your original question (whether CIA rather looks like X or like Y) has been answered: that answer is "it depends" (or variations thereof). On this noticeboard general reliability questions are only addressed if a recurring mainspace problem connected to that reliability deliberation is apparent. Perhaps start with indicating which mainspace content would be problematic if the general issue isn't resolved. Probably such issue can be addressed by the provisions in WP:PRIMARY and/or WP:SELFPUB. In the event it does not, we need a more precise question. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 14:20, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass, please. Sagecandor ( talk) 23:47, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
Is the following reliably sourced?
Mount Athos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Flag of Mount Athos
References
The Treaty of Berlin (1878) confirmed the autonomy of Mt Athos, and Greece annexed southern Macedonia, including Chalcidice, in 1913. In the same year, Mt Athos declared its independence as a monastic republic under Greece's protection. The republic adopted the crowned imperial double-headed eagle of Byzantium, rendered in black against golden background, as its flag.
It is not surprising that all symbols of Mount Athos, especially the Byzantine double-headed eagle and the Holy Virgin, who is the patron of the Holy Mount, represent old Byzantine traditions. [...] The flag of Mount Athos (Fig. 1) is golden yellow bearing the black Byzantine double-headed eagle with an imperial crown. The eagle holds in its claws an orb of black with golden bands and a black sword. The flag is ... During the millennial celebration of Mount Athos, it was often possible to see this flag flying together with the national flag of Greece on top of the government buildings in Karyes.
The state flag of Mount Athos - a black two-headed eagle...
Greek Yellow with a 2-headed Orthodox black eagle (also for Mount Church Athos)
MOUNT ATHOS Greek Hagion Oros Self-governing theocratic republic under Greek protectorate, SE Europe. STATE FLAG Date of introduction unknown. The golden yellow flag is charged with the black Byzantine eagle holding an orb and a sword in its claws. An imperial crown appears above its two heads.
-- SILENT RESIDENT 20:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
Let's not be coy: "a certain editor" is FutPerf. In " Unreliable sources", FutPerf argues for their unreliability, I think rather convincingly. There's more than a little exasperation on both sides of the argument; but if we put annoyance and frustration aside, FutPerf makes some good points. -- Hoary ( talk) 22:25, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
The point here is that some people (both Wikipedia editors and authors out there are proliferating a POV falsehood: that Mount Athos is a "state" (and as such, can be expected to have a state flag).and proved that it is useless. Dr. K. 06:22, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
It's also no coincidence that the editors who kept pushing the flag in this article have also been the same editors that kept pushing fictitious "official names" including the word "state" or "republic" into it.I think you betray a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:RS and WP:V. I did not "push" anything. I found RS which use these terms and I quoted them. You don't get to use PAs against me for bringing RS to the fore that use these terms and which you happen to disagree with. Your dismissal of RS with PAs is indicative of your POV and OR. Dr. K. 06:43, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
You display a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:V and WP:OR. WP:V is not a suicide pact.You keep trying to attack me with these nonsense statements. You have nothing to teach me. As my record of producing quality articles shows, I know damn well how to find and use RS. I am currently at RSN because I want to examine the sources, since the flag area is not my specialty. If the sources make statements not supported by facts then I have no problem to reject them. However, calling Athos a "protectorate" or some other term not absolutely technically correct, should not disqualify a source immediately if the question is about the flag itself and not the exactness of the term describing the polity. However, if the editors at RSN don't agree with my position, I have no problem agreeing that the source should be dropped. Your problem is that you use PAs as soon as people don't agree with your dogma and to add insult to injury you are hellbent implying that I try to "push" these terms, which is clearly your heavy-handed method of trying to attack editors you disagree with, as your long record of documented incivility clearly shows. Dr. K. 07:17, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
No way, Future Perfect. To have the flag moved from the infobox is basically to have what you wanted in the first place: remove the flag completely from the infobox to suit your POV. I vehemently am opposing this and I suggest you accept Cplakida's proposal which is to keep the flag but with a different caption, is a good compromise which takes in account both your concerns and everyone else's. -- SILENT RESIDENT 14:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
(preferably outside the infobox,...I think that it is ok to keep it in the infobox with a suitable caption, even referring to the two strongest RS [2] and [4] which support it as the flag of Athos. Dr. K. 14:24, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
About #2: A source that lifts its entire first paragraphs from Britannica is quite obviously not a reliable source about anything. I'm astonished at your defending such a practice.EB is a reliable source and copying EB verbatim is allowed as long as it is from the 1911 edition which is in the public domain. This practice is allowed on Wikipedia, and I am astonished you didn't know about it, although I suspect that you do but you could not resist another cheap stunt, coming after the most recent one with
(both Wikipedia editors and authors out there are proliferating a POV falsehood: that Mount Athos is a "state" (and as such, can be expected to have a state flag), a fact that was rebutted and proven to be useless and a clear useless falsification intended to smear the reputations of reputable editors here. The fact remains that The Flag Bulletin is a recognised specialist publication and a reliable source.
About #4, you seem to be over-impressed by the credentials of Mr Crampton. William Crampton was a schoolteacher of sorts with a degree in sociology and an amateur self-styled "researcher" on flags.Your self-serving analysis of Crampton's origins goes against his long career and practice as a flag expert and his international standing as an expert. Crampton, your original research notwithstanding, is an internationally-recognised expert on flags and as such his source is a reliable source.
He founded a club for his hobby-horse, which he called an "Institute". That doesn't make him, or the publications spawned by his institute, an academic authority.More manufactured original research intended to belittle Compton and the Flag Institute. Just read the article on what you call so dismissively "hobby horse" to see what an important institute it is and go to their website to check the specialist and expert flag-related work they do in the UK and internationally.
That doesn't make him, or the publications spawned by his institute, an academic authority.More pretentious academic "rigour" claptrap. You don't need to have a Ph.D. in flag-ology to determine if Mount Athos has a flag or not. That monastic state has a flag which is a fact recognised by many reliable sources specialising in flags. Mount Athos, being a primarily religious entity, is averse to creating elements associated with official statehood such as constitution, rigorous flag adoptions and descriptions etc. But its long practice of using this flag has been documented and verified by flag experts. You don't get to belittle the long practice of these flag experts, and international respect and recognition they enjoy for their work classifying and categorising flags, because of your manufactured haughty requirements of "academic rigour" for such an obvious fact, namely that Athos has a flag which by tradition and wide recognition, has become the official flag of that monastic entity. Your pretentious "academic rigour" requirements aside, this is a self-evident and RS-recognised fact. Dr. K. 16:42, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Mount Athos, being a primarily religious entity, is averse to creating elements associated with official statehood such as constitution, rigorous flag adoptions and descriptions etc.No pun intented, but I am wondering if Future Perfect, who declared himself an "Mount Athos expert", has ever been in Athos at all. The fact that he goes as far as to diminish all the reliable sources and even to demote the flag experts out there (who know more on flags than anyone here), only proves that we are dealing with a blatant POV case. The reason his POV has not found me agreeing with, is because the reality is quite different than his views. It is absolutely true that the Athonite institutions simply do not care about the outside world, nor they are going to write any constitutions just to formalize their flag and such. They are just running their monastic affairs and their monks are living their ascetic life. Nothing more, nothing less. And I am not expecting this reality to change anytime in the near future. Turning the flag and/or other Athonite descriptions or symbols into a big never-ending debate (I shall remind you it has been years since Future Perfect is stirring up this disruption about the flag), is not productive and I prefer that we spend our valuable time on other Wiki articles that could need our attention more than Mount Athos. -- SILENT RESIDENT 17:15, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
Lifting text from a public domain source may be not illegal in terms of copyright, but it still constitutes academic plagiarism if done without acknowledgment. Lifting text from a copyrighted source, as was done here, is of course even worse.I have an EB edition from 1985 which incorporates large-scale text from EB 1911. I suspect this text may have been copied from EB 1911 to a newer edition of EB. If the editors failed to acknowledge this copy, it may have been a breach of academic plagiarism standards, but it does not automatically render the rest of their flag-related observations invalid. In any case, can you quote the actual text you are referring to? Dr. K. 20:03, 17 June 2017 (UTC)
I was a bit surprised to not get a single hit in RSN archives about those sites. I was looking for some policy / guide that would state clearly those are not acceptable, but I couldn't find anything. It would be good to get some input and consensus on reliability of those sources, as well as whether we allow linking to them (we have currently, in all namespaces, including article namespace, 200+ links to Cliffsnotes, almost 700 links to Sparknotes, 1800+ links to Book Rages, 250+ links to scmoop, 111 links to Schaum's Outlines, 5 links to Study Notes, 74 loinks to quizlet and no links to YorkNotes ( [34]) except its own article, which seems totally acceptable. There may be others I am not aware of, but the existence of 2-3k links to this type of websites is an issue to be discussed. As I finished my education before such websites became popular, I have little personal experience with how content is created on them, and with their reliability. They are all unsourced, but that is not a damning issue - so are most encyclopedia articles, for example, and we are fine using those. Common sense also suggests that they are roughly accurate (not necessarily representing cutting edge of literary or like scholarship, of course). Who writes them would be good to know: is this content written by librarians/teachers/instructors, non-professionals, or (that would be a red flag) user-created by students themselves? Final thought: a lot of the content on those sites is simply plot summaries, which is not something we cite anyway. But they do seem to contain at least some analysis like [35] or [36]. What should our advice be for editors (students, etc.) which would like to use those as sources - and why? -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:52, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Study guides from a named person recognized in the field are certainly usable. Unfortunately, many modern study guides do not meet that criterion at all, and, in my opinion, are not usable for claims of fact. Where they are simply a précis of a book, they are likely "accurate enough," but claims of fact elude them far too often.
Collect (
talk) 15:24, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
Hello, I am not fully sue if this site is a reliable source. Please share your opinion. Thanks in advance. -- Tito Dutta ( talk) 11:38, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
are they getting paid by the movie industry to promote their movies if so they are probably unreliable in this context
also there is no published methodology on how they review movies
websites of a promotional nature are not acceptable to cite as a source
I Do not recommend MoviesFYI as a citation-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 00:26, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
From 1991 the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine (PCRM) recommended a low-fat vegan diet based on the "New Four Food Groups": fruit, legumes (peas, beans and lentils), grains and vegetables. The recommendation is three or more servings a day of fruit (one of them high in vitamin C, such as citrus fruit, melon or strawberries); two or more of protein-rich legumes (such as soybeans, which can be consumed as soy milk, tofu or tempeh); five or more of whole grains (corn, barley, rice and wheat in products such as bread or cereal); and four or more of vegetables.
i don't believe that an animal rights organization should be cited as a valid medical source-- Jonnymoon96 ( talk) 00:06, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
I've been redirected here from veganism talk page, where I was attempting to obtain consensus on the deletion of PCRM material on grounds that POV and blatantly judgemental language was being used. Here I see the discussion is still being being pursued in POV language, 'a decidedly dodgy advocacy group' with no reason for sticking that label on them. And now we are being redirected to another page? I need an admin to look at all this, we are being given the runaround with POV language. TonyClarke ( talk) 20:34, 18 June 2017 (UTC)
The National Council Against Health Fraud has criticized PCRM as being "a propaganda machine" and the American Medical Association has called PCRM a "pseudo-physicians group" promoting possibly dangerous nutritional advice.[2][3]
Hey, I'm getting increasingly addicted to this guy's YouTube channel ( here), particularly his brilliant Lord of the Rings lecture series. I've long considered open courses from Yale, UC Berkeley and the like to be reliable sources for uncontroversial factual claims and the opinions of the lecturers themselves (who generally meet our notability guidelines anyway), but this appears to be somewhat different, as the YouTube videos themselves seem to be the result of him (or someone under his direction) placing a camera and microphone on a desk, and him (or someone under his direction) uploading it onto a YouTube channel named for him rather than, say, his institution.
Specifically, I'd like to cite his critical opinions in various articles on these subjects (in case folks haven't noticed, we've got a lot of pretty crappy articles on fictional characters, particularly those appearing in works of speculative fiction), but I'm not sure if his opinions are any more noteworthy than mine or yours since he is essentially self-publishing, at least in these instances that I can access for free and listen to on my phone while taking long walks.
Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:09, 16 June 2017 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Task Force Tips, HighKing seems to be POV pushing describing what seem to be clear WP:RS as if they fail WP:ORGIND. E.g., he has insisted that this nwtimes article amounts to an announcement from the subject instead of journalism that went through the desired editorial process. He has similar complaints about this Fortune article and a machine design article-- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 21:55, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
Is Flavorwire article a reliable source to verify the public domain status of Born to Win? Hitcher vs. Candyman claims that it is at the " List of films in the public domain in the United States". -- George Ho ( talk) 02:38, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Oh, Green Cardamom removed the entry per talk page. -- George Ho ( talk) 02:43, 23 June 2017 (UTC)
Wikipedia includes more than 50 citations to a fringe-theory website called Above Top Secret. Do any of these citations need to be replaced? Jarble ( talk) 01:08, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
AboveTopSecret.com is the Internet's largest and most popular discussion board community dedicated to the intelligent exchange of ideas and debate on a wide range of "alternative topics" such as conspiracies, UFO's, paranormal, secret societies, political scandals, new world order, terrorism, and dozens of related topics on current events, politics, and government wrong-doing with poignant commentary from a diverse mix of users from all over the world.It is sensationalist non-expert, non-reliably-sourced, user-generated "alternate news" and discussions. Can be entertaining, but unfit for an encyclopedia. — Paleo Neonate - 06:16, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
There is a discussion at Talk:Progressive Alliance about sourcing for the claim that the Democratic Party (United States) is a participant/member. [38] One of the sources is an interview in la diara with an official of the Socialist Party of Uruguay, who says, "". [39] The official says, "It was initially integrated by those who had supported the candidacy of Mona Sahlin, but then began to add valuable organizations that until now had not been in the SI, such as the Workers' Party of Brazil, and begin to weave alliances, as with the Democratic Party of the United States...Then came the idea of consolidating the Progressive Alliance as an organization."
First, I do not think it is clear that the Democratic Party's connection was the same as the other SI members and no mention of whether the party actually joined the organization. Second, interviews are not normally considered realible sources for facts.
In my opinion, this is a typical example of not finding the sources for what they think should be in the article in the usual sources, such as news reports, and settling for what they can find, however tangential to the subject. Why would someone go to an interview of a politician in Uruguay to determine whether a U.S. Party, which has received extensive coverage in all types of sources, is a member of an international group based in Europe?
TFD ( talk) 22:00, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
I recently removed some text from this article, on the basis that the source cited described the information it was about to mention as "coming from a book with no "pretension to objectivity or scholarship". So we were citing a seemingly reliable source talking about an unreliable source. My view is that unreliable material has no verification and should not be in Wikipedia, because of WP:V.
I've been reverted by Truth be toad (great username, by the way) on the basis "The author cites a book with a specific Muslim criticism/view relevant to the article." I have no difficulty in a Muslim perspective being included, but if it is to state that such a perspective is something inflammatory like this is one of the "ridiculous stories of the Bible", it needs proper sourcing.
Not interested in edit-warring, so posting here for your views. -- Dweller ( talk) Become old fashioned! 09:30, 22 June 2017 (UTC)
Aquillion my problem is using an unreliable source for anything is bad, and using it to cite something being described as the Muslim perspective on "a ridiculous story" in the Bible is really problematic. --
Dweller (
talk) Become
old fashioned! 09:04, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
@
Dweller: Cheers for complementing my username.
@
StarryGrandma: You said: "Sections like these look like editors using Google books to find negative phrases about a religious concept and using them as sources, without paying much attention to what the source actually says." I agree with everything you said until that damned comma.
Truth be toad (
talk) 03:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't feel that Science Alert [40] should be considered credible for scientific matters. The homepage is full of clickbait; two headlines include "Anonymous Says NASA Is About to Announce Evidence of Alien Life" and "Finally Read Your Phone in The Sun Thanks to The Power of Moths' Eyes".
The source has been briefly discussed on this board [41] but not in detail. I recently removed a reference I considered dubious in the water article. Power~enwiki ( talk) 22:43, 26 June 2017 (UTC)
I have recently got into an edit war (that I have stopped in the meantime) with user Tuvixer when I tried to add polls made by 2x1 komunikacije, which were the only one to correctly predict the winner of the election. The polls are usually published on direktno.hr portal (for example: http://direktno.hr/direkt/anketa-2x1-komunikacije-hdz-biljezi-pad-popularnosti-most-i-hns-narasli-81673/ ), but are also mentioned in other media:
Our whole discussion can be seen at Talk:Croatian presidential election, 2014–15. Also, I saw that he reverted all mentions of the said survey in Next Croatian parliamentary election article (I HAVE NOT edited that article at all), without even discussing it, and even changing the introduction to include only polls published by TV chanells (see here: [42]). He described direktno.hr as "right wing antisemitic and pro fascist tabloid" and told me to "stop citing them". While I can't deny them being slightly to the right, they are far from being extreme. Their workers include Davor Gjenero (independent liberal, also works with Al Jazeera and is a frequent guest on HRT - national TV), Tomislav Marčinko (centre-right, worked on national TV and is one of the founders of NovaTV - one of three major TV houses in Croatia), Gordan Malić (also often a guest in other media) and other journalists and analysts with experience in major newspapers and TV houses. What I am trying to prove is that the polls from 2x1 komunikacije should be included, as they are frequently cited by other portals and newspapers and not only direktno.hr. Tuxiver provided two main "sources" against the polling agency:
So, I am kindly asking the members here to state their opinion on the polling agency. StjepanHR ( talk) 13:16, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
If two sources are both considered reliable, and due to policy we can only list one, do we only list the source that is the "industry standard"? Something similar is happening here. SharkD Talk 14:50, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
Is this an RS please? Zigzig20s ( talk) 14:02, 28 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm not writing about a particular content dispute; rather, I'm hoping to solicit thoughtful feedback on an issue that has come up a several times recently: whether articles by Erik Wemple of The Washington Post (archive here) are generally reliable for the facts they contain. Of course WaPo is by and large quite reliable, and WP:NEWSBLOG suggests that Wemple's pieces shouldn't be deemed unreliable simply because they're part of what WaPo calls a "blog," but the problem here is that WaPo at least formally categorizes his work as opinion, but it often contains what appears to be factual, investigative reporting in addition to commentary. Every article written by Wemple (e.g. [52]) is designated as "Opinion" but says in Wemple's byline, "Erik Wemple writes the Erik Wemple blog, where he reports and opines on media organizations of all sorts.") To me, the fact that WaPo designated Wemple's blog as "opinion" suggests that it's held to a lower standard of review by the editorial staff--but how low?
Another, closely related issue here is whether Wemple's pieces can be used as indication of a Wikipedia article's notability. Wemple often spotlights media issues that haven't received a lot of public attention, so this issue can be pivotal in whether a media organization or journalist merits a Wikipedia article. (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:50, 26 June 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.
After a comment here, a discussion opened here and a suggestion here, I removed an external link from Wikipedia's mainspace per WP:ELNEVER. Later I was criticised for that decision ("... eliminated links to the site ...").
{{
cite web}}
: |access-date=
requires |url=
(
help); Missing or empty |url=
(
help)Is there a way to retain the external link in the article? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 09:41, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
I meant to add to my previous comment but don't want to disturb the chronology. We should not talk about one specific link in one article, discussing one specific action, but clarify that Bach Cantatas Website can be used as an external link and even as a reference. It has been used in 2005, random example BWV 6 ("Various comments on the piece", one of three external links), it is used in the same article today as a reference, and in hundreds of other articles on cantatas, hymns, biographies, discographies, - just not in BWV 10. -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 12:46, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
Oron references in these articles could probably use some scrutiny. BWV 208 and 248 are examples of fairly extended articles, not GA or FA or so, but showing that a lot can be covered with a wide variety of other references. Not retained in the list above: articles only containing links to "chorale melody" pages at the Bach Cantatas Website (these don't seem problematic to me while generally only containing public domain data). Also not listed: pages that link to the Bach Cantatas Website from the external links section only (not this noticeboard). Can we agree on a coordinated approach, for instance Gerda Arendt checking FA articles from the above list they were involved in, or start with re-linking Bach Pilgrimage liner notes to the SDG website if possible, etc. – don't want to propose a time-schedule yet, there is no deadline I suppose? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:33, 10 June 2017 (UTC) Expanded and updated 16:26, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Always thought BC site an excellent source, an authority on Bach related topics, so much that I even began a missing article list from it.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:46, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Two observations: not linking to a page does not prevent us from using it as a reference if it turns out to be reliable – there's no requirement to link a ref; and the simplest way to find out if the suspected copyvio content is hosted with permission is probably to write and ask. Oh, and if anyone wants add a citation for a chorale melody, they need only give the relevant page number in Riemenschneider. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 15:44, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
Maybe a side-aspect but it came up in previous talk, and I saw a wide variety of formats when doing my checks yesterday. Acceptable formats to refer to the website (in mainspace I mean, not talking about short formats used in talk) are imho:
I have a slight preference for the first. When capitalised, without hyphens, "Website" should be the last word, not just "Bach Cantatas" while that could refer to almost any collection of Bach Cantatas. With a hyphen: best to use lower case I suppose, and always add ".com" to make clear one is referring to a website. Wouldn't italicise either expression, I don't think we do that for website names. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 08:06, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Above it was contended "I am rather sure that the record labels know about the presentation of their liner notes" – afaics it isn't even all that relevant whether the record labels know. E.g. the Klaus Hofmann liner notes used as a reference in the BWV 10 article are published by the BIS record label. The text, as printed, ends with:
In the case BIS would write a letter to Mr. Oron asking to take down the copyrighted text, Mr. Oron would feel under no obligation to do so (see http://www.bach-cantatas.com/Copyright-Policy.htm – BIS can not act "on behalf" of the copyright owner, BIS is only a licensee allowed to publish a text of which the copyright is "owned" by the author)
This approach is very different from Wikipedia's: it is no secret that if in Wikipedia something is encountered that "looks like" something found outside Wikipedia, without clear attribution of where the Wikipedia contributor found it and/or without clear notice that its copyright is cleared, the possibly copyright-infringing material is removed first: questions can be asked later, and the material can be brought back if a sufficient clearance is obtained.
In Wikipedia any contributor can place a {{ copyvio}} template, and admins will act on it, including the deletion of possibly copyright-infringing earlier page revisions. For media files the procedure is often even simpler: if you upload an image without clear copyright statement admins will routinely act by complete removal of the questionable content from the site. No jumping through hoops as at the Bach Cantatas Website: if you are not the copyright owner or their legal representative, writing a letter complying to a list of formalisms, the copyrighted text can linger on that website forever. In Wikipedia a text or image copyrighted elsewhere can only be retained if any of the following applies, and, in each case, with a clear attribution of what applies:
In general the way copyrights are handled at the Bach Cantatas Website rather resemble YouTube copyright provisions (as someone alluded to above), which whatever way it is turned is a site Wikipedia considers "not reliable *unless* some pretty tough conditions are met", and that can only clear one page at a time (never the entire website). Yet, with all its strict copyright handling, Wikipedia does still not consider itself reliable. So I'd like to compare to another site I've used quite often in references on various Wikipedia pages:
Concluding, I'd say that the way copyrights are handled on M. Oron's site is fundamentally incompatible with the care Wikipedia displays towards copyrighted material. A careful handling of copyrights can be found on The LiederNet Archive website, which I used as an example above, and that is what makes this website copyright-wise generally (as opposed to exceptionally) acceptable to link to from Wikipedia. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 13:10, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
Can we summarize this subsection by saying that links to copyrighted material on the bach-cantatas.com website were never allowed (per WP:ELNEVER), and that that standard will be upheld in Wikipedia from now on?
Further, I'd like to return to the topic I mentioned higher up: how are we going to take this up practically? I'd deplore a blunt removal of mainspace content currently referenced to the bach-cantatas.com website. Hundreds of articles are affected if we no longer consider that website a generally reliable source.
I propose we cooperate: maybe in a first pass check which content can be safely referenced to the site. For Lutheran hymn related material I suppose content and references can often be vetted "as is" for the time being. At least that seems less urgent to remedy. For the liner notes there seem to be chiefly two types that are most often used:
For the discographies a "light" solution would be to provide the record companies' reference code of the recording, in which case another reference (like the bach-cantatas.com discography page) is no longer needed. A bit more work is to provide OCLC numbers, BnF references, and other kinds of librarian's resources. Some data in the discography lists can not be confirmed by these sources: these should probably better be pruned than kept with a reference to the bach-cantatas website.
As for timing: I'd address these issues in FA articles first, then GA articles, etc, ... until also the start class articles have been checked. This may take months (or more). Who is in on such scheme to address the issues that are probably going to result from this RSN? -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 12:16, 29 June 2017 (UTC)
I don't know where to put an observation, so start a new header: Among the "reliable sources" left in the article is the Bach Cantata Page by the University of Alberta, https://webdocs.cs.ualberta.ca/~wfb/cantatas/10.html. At the bottom, it links to the Bach Cantatas Website. If that respected source links to it, why should we not do the same? -- Gerda Arendt ( talk) 14:06, 15 June 2017 (UTC)
I was thinking about replacing reference 7 in Johnny Ace (which is a dead link [56]) with another source that verifies the quote currently attributed to it; specifically, this book, published in 2011 by RosettaBooks. (The quote can be found here) Do other editors consider it to be a reliable enough source? This publisher doesn't have a WP page and they seem to be digital-only, but on the other hand, they don't seem to be a self-publishing company. Everymorning (talk) 20:02, 30 June 2017 (UTC)