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 225 | ← | Archive 230 | Archive 231 | Archive 232 | Archive 233 | Archive 234 | Archive 235 |
Is right-wing think tank Accuracy in Media, run by this guy, an appropriate source for allegations that a living person is a propagandist for Russia? This source would not be used when it alleges against liberals (most of its work) but apparently when it makes extreme claims about other conservatives that's fair game, says MjolnirPants, who thinks he can make the source not right-wing by saying "no it's not" (see page history). Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 18:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the link I provided from the SPLC: "For more than 30 years at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing outfit opposed to the "liberal" media, Kincaid has cranked out reams of material — rife with innuendo and speculation but light on facts —aimed at buttressing his far-right, xenophobic and homophobic views." You would not find such a source on a BLP of anyone else so why here? Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Accuracy in Media and Cliff Kincaid are not usable for anything in a BLP, e.g.:
Editors who restored this source in a BLP over objections should be cautioned that future violations will result in sanction. James J. Lambden ( talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Alex Jones and his loyalties to whatever cause, but Accuracy in Media is an organization promoting conspiracy theories. Among their previous claims:
It is not a reliable source even for what it states about itself. Dimadick ( talk) 11:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This right here: [2] is evidence enough that Alex is not a reliable source. His lawyers have already said that he plays a "character" for entertainment purposes. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
What makes BuzzFeed and Amazon.com RS? The former site looks like a venue for self-publishing to me. They're being used at the Final Destination 3 article, which is currently being evaluated against the site's Featured Article standards. SLIGHTLY mad 05:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is a source for journalist-style information, an editorial board, and a decent reputation for accuracy. Though it has been known for deleting material which criticize the companies which advertise on it, in particular Unilever, Hasbro, Microsoft, and Pepsi.
Amazon.com is a company's website about the products it has on sale. It is not a third-party source. It does not provide in-depth coverage on anything, does not have a reputation for accuracy, ans it is rather light on facts. I doubt that it is even close to a reliable source. In which articles is it used for sourcing? Dimadick ( talk) 12:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Amazon.com should be treated as a perennial website. There was a discussion started on this here: Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#Another list or an expansion of this one? (Amazon, iTunes, etc) as the upcoming release dates are accurate. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. i wanna ask for this article, despite we don't know names of writers of this article, is this article reliable for Sarmatians studies ? can we use it for articles in wikipedia ? does president of Encyclopædia Britannica give permission to everybody (whom didn't passed academic course) to edit and change content of such this articles? -- Rostam2 ( talk) 13:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right noticeboard, but it's ref-related nonetheless. At Ken Norton and Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton, an editor has inserted content—sources, apparently—but none of it is formatted correctly, or at all for that matter. It's just bare text, and some of it even instructs the reader to use Google of all things: [4], [5]. It shouldn't be up to others to fix formatting for mass edits like that. Should I revert and point them to a guideline? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The question arises on Itamar, an Israeli settlement on the occupied Palestinian West Bank. ARIJ states which Palestinian villages have had land confiscated from them, to be given to Itamar.
I added the info, link, but it was removed, with the edit line "A polemic think tank is not a RS." As people can see: The webpage I tried to add is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation.
Needless to say, this is straight in the middle of WP:ARBPIA-land...
Feedback from outsiders will be appreciated, thanks! Huldra ( talk) 20:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the issue can be handled by careful phrasing and attribution. Itamar, like all settlements in the West Bank, is illegal under international law. We don't need the ARIJ to tell us this part. We can attribute to ARIJ the claims by Palestinians that it took over land from nearby villages. Other sources which flesh out the details are this B'Tselem source, and this article (from 2003) might also be useful to describe the evolution of Itamar: according to the story, until the Second Intifada, Itamar existed alongside Palestinian villages, but didn't directly take over the land from Yanun. However, after the violence after 2000, the situation changed. It quotes some Palestinians as saying that armed settlers prevented them from harvesting olives. It also quotes a spokesperson for Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This book also goes into a little bit of detail on Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue is there is academic consensus that king Narakasura's is of Mithila (region) (Videha)( India) origin. Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before. In her chapter "The Naraka Legends, Aryanisation and the "varnasramadharma in the Brahmaputra Valley" in 'Proceedings of the Indian History Congress' of 'Indian History Congress' she wrote that king Naraka is a local chief from Brahmaputra Valley region of India and not from Mithila. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Bhauma_dynasty#Naraka's origins.
My question is how wikipedia treats isolated studies by non-experts when it goes against long established scholarly consensus among mainstream academicians. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
A new editor has been persistently editing James Craven (American actor) to insert and reinsert unsourced information that contradicts the article's only existing source, such as that he was born in Canada rather than Pennsylvania and that he died about 20 years later than claimed — and their only "source" for the changed information is "I knew him" (which isn't convincing if we can't prove that who the editor really knew isn't some other person who merely happened to have the same name). But conversely, the article's only existing source is his IMDb profile, which isn't considered a reliable source either because it can also contain errors.
I've protected the article for the time being, but since the vast majority of his roles listed in the IMDb profile seem to be either minor guest roles or entirely uncredited appearances as unnamed characters, it's not even clear that he would pass WP:NACTOR at all — but a proper WP:BEFORE test would require checking American media of the 1940s and 1950s, which is not a type of resource I have access to at all as I only have access to Canadian newspaper databases for that era. So could somebody with historical US newspaper access run a sourcing check to see if the article's an WP:AFD candidate or not? Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Following on this now-archived thread...
This is about a specific use of the "wiki what" ref in the T.J. Miller article as follows:
Todd Joseph "T.J." [1] Miller (born June 4, 1981) is an American actor, comedian, producer, and writer. [2]
References
This is citation #1 in the article. It is putatively a source for the spelling of the initials without a space ("T.J." not "T. J."), but as the NYT ref shows - which is already provided and plenty enough reliable -- the name is spelled without a space. Similarly every other ref in the article spells it without a space - a fact also noted by BrillLyle here. So this brings no value and is just refspam, and we should not cite it here.
Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 05:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
we'll see what happens with the next episode or whateverIs this going to be a weekly issues or whatever time period the show is. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the Washington Times RS for the following, the article in question is Patriot Prayer
Valerie Richardson writing in the Washington Times has said that critics of Gibson have argued that his rallies, even though they are not sponsored by white nationalists do attract those with racist outlooks. The SPLC have noted that the organizers of the 7 August 2017 rally had “promised the critics who talked with them that racist elements had been denounced and uninvited from the rally.” but that the Proud Boys, and members of Identity Evropa (IE) as well as local IE leader, Jake Van Ott were seen at the event. Gibson says that people who are affiliated with IE have appeared at his events, but has made it clear they were unwelcome and has ejected them when possible. Gibson also says “It’s a constant problem because we get these random people that are trying to provoke and they’re trying to agitate,”
Given I have attributed it to both the article author as well as the newspaper I'm not seeing an issue with it, thoughts please Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the proposed paragraph is meant to be the opening paragraph in this section. While I agree there isn't necessarily anything wrong with the paragraph as representative of Gibson's response to criticism (and the paragraph adequately cites the response as Gibson's own words), a few editors (including myself) have objected to DS's proposal to open the section with it as there are many, reliable secondary sources that comment on what Patriot Prayer is. Publishing Gibson's response to the portrayal of the group without first giving an accurate portrayal of the group seems both nonsensical and undue. The discussion is ongoing at the talk page where I would invite DS to address the point, as I don't think RSN is the appropriate place for it, nor should consensus here that the sourcing isn't problematic lead DS to believe that his suggested placement within the overview is supported by it. 207.222.59.50 ( talk) 14:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Recent discussions are here and here. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Is Daily Kos a reliable source please? I'd like to add some content about Wharton professor William T. Kelley, but I can't find a better source than this so far. So if it's not reliable, it could be "fake news"! Zigzig20s ( talk) 06:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
To settle a difference of opinion on blue, some opining is requested. SiefkinDR ( talk · contribs) is insisting that we need to provide a citation for blue being the colour of the sky, and referencing it with a dictionary. I am insisting otherwise. I also have a problem with the phrase"[blue] the colour of the clear sky" as it isn't at sunset or sunrise or night for that matter. Using a dictionary to cite this I am not thrilled about. The colour pages are deathly quiet so more opinions would be good. We have similar issues at white and red..... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
A dictionary is a terrible source for that fact. I see no reason to cite this in the lede; the implicit citation through the hyperlink to Rayleigh scattering and discussion in the article body (under "Why the sky and sea appear blue") is more than sufficient. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a problem on some other colour pages - e.g. yellow, the same user has prominently "[yellow] is the color of ripe lemons and many egg yolks" cited to the OED...which I am concerned is too general and is possibly incorrect (some eggyolks are more orange..as are some ripe lemons I've seen too...and I have no idea about eggyolks of other animals other than chickens). Hence my preferred is "Many fruit are yellow when ripe, such as lemons and bananas, their color derived from carotenoid pigments. Egg yolks gain their color from xanthophylls, also a type of carotenoid pigment" which doesn't go so far as to assume all eggyolks are yellowbut does discuss them. Anyhoo... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The OED apparently says red is the colour of rubies, blood and strawberries, but I am not happy with the inaccuracy as venous blood can be more purple blue..crustacean blood is blue, many rubies are more pink than red and strawberries have little tan seeds all over them and white bits too. Again, my response is talk about pigments etc. in para 3 of lead...what do others think? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 October 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.
Source: Gunter, Booth; Kizzire, Jamie (April 21, 2016). Gunter, Booth, ed. "Whose heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved October 6, 2017
Article: List of Confederate monuments and memorials
Content: This report is composed of two parts which are cited in the article, a compiled list of Confederate monuments and an analysis of their effects and purpose. Two separate issues are being debated at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials:
1. Is the SPLC report a reliable source for the name and location of a monument, without verification from another source?
2. Is the SPLC report a reliable source for analysis such as "Most of these (monuments) were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension"? – dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
conservative bloggers and opinion writers (at least some of whom have ties to the groups listed) and from alt-right types lately. Anmccaff ( talk)
the guy who thinks the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC" will bring out the context; this isn't the first time that Morty tried poisoning the well here, nor the first that Fyddlestix acquiesced to it. Anmccaff ( talk) 02:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
the extremist hate wing's hard-on for slandering the SPLCwith "well said." Anmccaff ( talk) 02:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 20:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC report is not a RS for the Jim Crow linewhat's wrong with the passage on page 11 of the pdf, which clearly says there were two distinct pikes in monument building, and that "the first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society." The same paragraph also says that the spike lasted until about 1920, and also says that the second spike coincided with the civil rights movement, as it "led to a backlash among segregationists". That paragraph would seem to verify the sentence under discussion here just fine.
3. (Added by request after previous comments were received) As an organization that relies on donations, does the SPLC have a financial interest that may cause it to present the material in a biased way? – dlthewave ☎ 01:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC) BOLDly moving this question to its own subsection. Feel free to revert. Pinging @ Dlthewave:. Ca2james ( talk) 04:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been born in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.Yup, that had something to do with it, alright, but it also reflected the recovery of the southern economy, the fact that aged veterans were looking back to their youth -a sort of "we were rebels once, and young." It also reflected the universal self-justification of old fights that Lifton captured in "Revolutionary Immortality;" survivors assuage any guilt with the knowledge that their friends must have died in a great cause; only the next generation can ever widely question that. Finally, it ignores both the fact that several namings were simple memorials to the dead, and others also reflected later actions. Consider, for example the William F. Perry Monument. Is this an celebration of white supremacy? A monument to an old soldier? an memorial of a well-respected teacher? Nahh, it's an effin' gravestone is what it is, when you get down to it. Is the John B. Castleman Monument about a Confederate officer...or a United States one? Or is it about the man himself, damned if he isn't wearing civvies, by the look of it. Is the Palmyra massacre memorial possibly just partly about people seen as killed in an unfair sort of way? is the Fayetteville Arsenal marker only about the Confederate history? Are all the things in Lee County, SC named for Marse Robert, or are perhaps a couple of them named for the county itself?
here's a picture of the Palmyra monumentReally? the Palmyra monument is a big, nearly blank white thing - I guess that might be the white supremacy angle? - with the words "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book?" Delphic, that.
How about the Haywood Shepherd monument in WV, memorial to a man killed on October 16, 1859, before there was a CSA? It was erected by the notorious UDC, does that make it a memorial to the CSA? Also you really are not concerned that the SPLC graph, and thus ours, only uses a bit over one half of the monuments they collected? And that they did not collect many others? Carptrash ( talk) 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"Scratch a group complaining about the SPLC, and there's a 99.9% likelihood you'll find a hate group." Let's see. I am complaining about the SPLC therefore there is a 99.9% chance that I'm in a hate group. Okay, I'll go somewhere else and thanks for the textbook example of on-line bullying. Another shining wikipedia moment. Carptrash ( talk) 21:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I am a mite suspicious that the publisher of this article may be an unreliable publisher, considering that it was considered a potential predatory publisher. On the other hand this particular item is also on ResearchGate. Some additional uses exist (one of which states that the group may be self-publishing). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been using this website quite a bit for the Bakyt Torobayev page. It's a news agregator -- so it collects and reposts newspaper reports online from various sources in Central Asian countries. What do folks think about the reliability of such website? It is hard to examine the reliability of the content behind what has been posted. Per this, I also just found out that it translates Kyrgyz articles into Russian for the sake of accessibility. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the article for Leatherface (2017 film), we have two sources stating that the film will receive a home video release internationally in December 2017. However, these are international news sites and I have no idea if they are reliable. One is called DVD-Forum.at (which claims to be a magazine and not a literal forum), while the other is Blairwitch.de. Help? Dark Knight 2149 21:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran into this at Bamboo network, where The Global Bell Curve by Richard Lynn and published by Washington Summit Publishers, which is run byh Richard B. Spencerand specializes in white nationalist and far-right books is used 10 times to back statements on "economic clout" and history. I raised this with the editor who added it, Backendgaming ( talk · contribs) who replied "I've read and have a PDF version of the book and it certainly contains an enormous amount of reliable sociological data that is consistent and congruent with the economic success of the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia with regards to the Bamboo network article. I have not seen any element of white nationalism as the book presents rational arguments based on logical data presented in an easily readable form that's hard to refute, though I see that the data extrapolated from the samples were rather sloppy without considering social and political implementations. The author Richard Lynnand the publisher Washington Summit Publishers seems controversial but it seems to act as a litmus test to the open-mindedness of advocates of political correctness as well as liberals who want to provocatively shut down any attempt to discredit any sort of compelling evidence that backs up a cogent argument by using terms such as white nationalism against observation-based logic that runs completely counter to the egalitarian narratives of liberal orthodoxy of the politically correct."
He's also used the source at History of the Jews in China, Chinese people in Myanmar, Hoa people, Chinese Cambodian, Thai Chinese and probably others. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we should use this as we would any partisan or heavily disputed source. That is, attribute it as the author's claims where the author's views would be notable rather than stating them as fact, and prefer better and less disputed sources for questions of fact. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Nothing published by Washington Summit should be considered a RS for facts. Maybe as a source for the authors (attributed) opinion but most of what they publish is FRINGE anyway, which means that including such views is going to be UNDUE (as I would argue it is in this case) unless it's for an article about white nationalism or other racist ideologies & views. This should go without saying tbh - the idea that this press has anything remotely resembling the editorial oversight and control we expect RS to have is laughable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of publishers out there that have their POV on certain topics clearly visible, but we don't rule those out the books they publish due to that view.Those publishers don't openly espouse (and exist to spread) racial hatred. Sorry but that's a major false equivalence and a lousy argument. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the publisher, which seems to be active for about 11 years and does not seem to have much of a reputation. I am much more familiar with Richard Lynn, primarily known for his support of eugenics and as a modern representative of scientific racism. Lynn has an axe to grind, and several of his studies so far are considered to have been based on flawed or fabricated data. Lynn thinks that he can determine the "national IQ" of every country on the planet by using samples of what the population scored in an IQ test. But his samples are statistically small, they are not representative of the general population, and the persons sampled may be too young to perform well in the test. His estimate on the national IQ of Egypt, for example, was based on a sample of 129 students, all aged between 6 and 12-years-old. See: https://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html
He has also published estimates on both the IQ and the GDP of various countries in the year 1820, a century prior to the creation of of the IQ test. It is rather unclear on what he based his estimates on. Among the problems with his estimates, is that Lynn does not take into account the social background of the people tested and its effects on their education. As pointed by K. Richardson, students originating from the middle class often have better educational opportunities than their peers. But Lynn ignores that. After pointing other flaws in Lynn's data and conclusions, Richardson concludes that Lynn's thesis "is not so much science, then, as a social crusade." Dimadick ( talk) 10:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Text and sources: According to the New York Times, The Independent, and academic experts, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims attacks. [1] [2] [3]
References
Despite a widespread view that the Islamic State opportunistically claims attacks with which it has little genuine connection, its track record — minus a handful of exceptions — suggests a more rigorous protocol. At times, the Islamic State has gotten details wrong, or inflated casualty figures, but the gist of its claims is typically correct.
It has been accused of opportunistically or falsely linking itself to atrocities, but no investigations have so far disproved Isis' claims and analysts say it is in the group's interest to maintain Amaq's apparent credibility.
According to Michaël Dantinne, Professor of Criminology at ULG, the terrorist organization always scrupulously analyzes assaults and attacks before taking credit.
Text is used in 2017 Brussels attack article, here
The immediate disagreement is on the 2017 Brussels attack article.
Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this attack via one of its standard channels Amaq News Agency, (that ISIS has claimed the attack is not disputed).
The dispute is mainly whether the three sources above support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks". I contend that even if attributed to NYT and the Independent and the expert named in the third source, the sources support several conclusions, including that ISIS' "track record .... suggests a more rigorous protocol" (than the "widespread view" that it "opportunistically claims attacks"), that the (unspecified) "gist" of their claims is "typically correct", that "no investigations have so far disproved Isis’ claims" and that ISIS "always scrupulously analyzes assaults and attacks before taking credit". However, IMO it is a gross over-simplification to render this as ISIS is "usually accurate".
The same sources have been used in several other terrorist-related discussions and I am keen to establish WHAT these sources support, since this affects numerous other terrorist-related articles and the credibility of ISIS claims across a broad, and very contentious, subject area.
There is a seperate issue of whether it is appropriate to discuss ISIS credibility in THIS article, (as opposed to somewhere in the Amaq/ISIS pages) previous discussion on talk is here. Thankyou Pincrete ( talk) 17:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Please ping if any response is needed from me.
In June 2017, German police arrested a A 23 year old Syrian man identified only as Mohammed G., accusing him of passing on information to the Amaq News Agency about this and other events since 2014. German police accused Mohammad G. of communicating with the alleged perpetrator of the Malmö arson attack on social media. According to the German prosecutor’s office, “One day after this attack, the accused demanded from his contact person (in Sweden) a personal claim of this deed..., The background was that Amaq did not want to issue a report about the attack without such a claim”.
Following the arrest of Mohammad G., Shiraz Maher, deputy director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College, London, said "We’ve all assumed that they are reading news reports, and then saying, ‘Our guy did this.’ But this is interesting because this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name”.
And, yes, I think it does support these article do support the claim as I phrased it:"According to the
New York Times and
The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack.", albeit not the statement now in the article as cited by Pincrete.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 09:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If I remember the chronology correctly:
In sum, no, "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack" is not suitable content the 2017 Brussels attack article: it gives too much weight to the ISIS speculation (which can neither be proven nor disproven at this point), and which is maybe no more than 10% of the speculation about the attack's causes in reliable sources (there being more than one reliable newspaper in Belgium of course). Especially the New York Times and The Independent, not speaking about this incident, should not be ushered in to give that minority view WP:UNDUE weight. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Reply to E.M.Gregory, I did not select any of these quotes, they were the ones presented by XavierItzm as part of the discussion on talk, which he claimed supported the text in the quote box above. If some other part of the sources given supports the claims, rather than accuse me of being 'selective', please point out where such support can be found. Please don't 'explain' the momentous significance of the arrest in Germany, since the 'significance' is patently your own invention.
The most that could possibly be claimed from the sources discussing the 'German' arrest is that since the arrest, some commentators have speculated that ISIS/Amaq is probably/possibly more careful, and sometimes more reliable about some matters than widely thought and may have checking mechanisms, or fact checkers in place in Europe. It takes an inordinate number of logical 'leaps into the dark' to get from that to Amaq/ISIS is "generally accurate about" .... anything, especially about ISIS involvement in a different attack, in a different country, not even mentioned in the first two sources.
Equally, if, in your opinion, the sources endorse 'your' reading (namely, "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack."). Perhaps you can point to where in the articles, claims of "affiliation", are discussed AT ALL, let alone such a huge 'dragnet' claim as 'your' text represents. Pincrete ( talk) 19:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC) … … ps The quote you supply above from Shiraz Maher, which ends: "getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our (ie ISIS') name” is immediately followed by, Maher "cautioning that the (German) news release mentioned only a single example" (ie Malmö, not Brussels nor anywhere else). The very expert quoted above is specifically cautioning against reaching any 'general' conclusion based on such scant evidence. Pincrete ( talk) 21:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Belatedly, one thing that bothers me about this is that two of the three sources presented are worded as debunking a widely-held view (ie. they're worded to say "most people say that ISIS frequently makes false claims about attacks, but this is not true.") Sources like that usually bother me because they imply that what they say is atypical - ie. the wording here implies the existence of many other sources accusing ISIS of falsely claiming responsibility for attacks, which these sources are a response to. I would want to be certain that we'd searched for that and represented the opposing point of view before relying on these for anything. (Even putting aside the WP:SYNTH issue, which I think is obvious.) And if we do use these sources for anything, it would have to be worded to at least acknowledge the common belief that ISIS frequently makes false claims, since two of the three sources talk about it - eg. "Although it is popularly perceived to make opportunistic claims of responsibility for attacks it had nothing to do with, ISIS actually..." Taking the first two sources and parsing them into just "ISIS only claims responsibility for attacks it actually did" without that first part is stripping away vital context. (And it's better for readers, who - if we don't have the first part - will probably say "wait, that can't be right, can it?" Explicitly saying that a commonly-held view is wrong is important.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: Amaq as ISIS's mouthpiece, let's say I create a webpage that documents attacks by North Korea. Things like the assassination of Kim Jong-nam. Let's say that my research is so good that The New York Times compliments me on my track record of accuracy. Would that make me a mouthpiece for Kim Jong-il? Or let's say I documented CIA assassinations. Would that make me a mouthpiece for the CIA? You are suggestion that we accept WP:OR. If you want to claim that Amag is a mouthpiece for ISIS, find some reliable sources that support that claim. Don't ask us to draw conclusions. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Credible, this claim certainly is, assured Michael Dentinne, insofar as it emanates from the official agency of communication of the Islamic State
So do we use them as a source for the LAs Vegas shooting? Slatersteven ( talk) 07:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor at Sohyang is suggesting the use of a Korean youtube source and I can't tell if it is RS. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is on my talk page. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of sources that have been added to this article that seem dubious:
This is about an advert for the subject, rather than the subject, but it's not clear if the source is a RS or if the award is notable."P90X: The Proof" infomercial won a Telly award in 2009
- again about an advert, but it's not clear if the source is a RS or if the award is notable."P90X: The Answer" infomercial won a Moxie award in 2010."P90X: The Answer" infomercial won a Moxie award in 2010.
- however this seems to be from the company that makes and sells P90X, which seems to breach WP:SELFSOURCE, as it makes claims about the alleged benefits of their product.In 2011, the sequel to P90X was released, P90X2. Also a 90-day workout regimen, P90X2 focuses on an applied sports science called Muscle Integration.[6] Instead of working one muscle group at a time, P90X2 uses resistance on unstable platforms to engage more muscles with each movement
- reliability unknown.In December 2013, P90X3 was released and featured 30 minute workouts as opposed to hour-long ones. P90X3 includes 16 routines, and includes yoga, mixed martial arts, Pilates, and plyometrics with upper and lower body workouts.
- Healthcare Global - reliability unknown, but seems to cite P90X advertising.Their advertising claims that "muscle confusion" is believed to prevent the body from adapting to exercises over time, resulting in continual improvement without plateau.
- makers website, breaches WP:SELFSOURCE as above.There are several programs associated with the Power 90 name. Currently for sale are P90, P90X, P90X+, P90X One on One, P90X2, and P90X3. Several others were produced, but are out of print, such as the original Power 90 series that spawned P90X.
Autarch ( talk) 22:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Bollywood Life is owned by Essel Group, who also owns DNA India and Zee Media, both of which are considered relaible. Is Bollywood Life a reliable source? 86.97.131.126 ( talk) 13:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Is Encyclopedia.com a reliable source? I'd like to cite this, but there are advertisements, so it doesn't look reliable. If this is a mirror website, could someone please help me find a source website that I could cite? Please ping me when you reply. Thanks! Zigzig20s ( talk) 10:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There are ads, I don't think we can cite it.Speaking as someone with a slow internet connection who until recently was forced by circumstance to spend a significant amount of wiki-time editing articles related to the entertainment industry that exclusively cite ad-heavy entertainment websites: I wish. Sorry, but commercial websites are no more or less "reliable" for our purposes than websites where there aren't ads. Forgive me if I'm misreading you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopedia.com may be reliable, since its articles often cite their specific sources on any given topic. As an original source, however, it is lacking. According to the Website itself it draws much of its content from posting online previously published material from "credible" printed sources, such as Oxford University Press and Columbia Encyclopedia.
The Donald Pizer article is specifically based on Pizer's entry in Contemporary Authors New Revision Series. It is a published resource containing biographical and bibliographical information "on the world's most-popular authors."
According to the Contemporary Authors entry in Wikipedia, the series started in 1962 and there are biographical entries for at least 120, 000 writers. The work is useful, but the criteria used excludes authors who publish works in languages other than English, and excludes authors who have published their works through vanity presses. So some significant authors may have no entry. The publisher is Gale, a Michigan-based company which specializes in publishing reference works for "public, academic, and school libraries". Gale has changed a number of corporate parents, but the current parent company seems to be Cengage Learning, a Massachusetts-based company which primarily publishes educational material. Dimadick ( talk) 11:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was using the attribution given in Encyclopedia.com. I was not aware Gale had a website. Dimadick ( talk) 10:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether he is listed in the 2014 edition you linked. Encyclopedia.com's website lists a 2009 copyright date for Gale, indicating use of an older version. Dimadick ( talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I decided to add a section about Free Thinking Forums at the Ali Khamenei's article, but I'm not sure the references are reliable in English wekipedia or not. Does these sources support the text about Free Thinking Forums? first source& secound source Thanks. Saff V. ( talk) 12:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Jax 0677 ( talk · contribs) has been insistent on adding this link as a source in Ded (band). I removed the source because it's an ongoing link that updates throughout the day, and thus will not show the sourced content for more than a week (the link is dated for October 18-24, and states that it was updated on the 25th). As it is a chronically updating link, it cannot be used to verify an individual chart position. Jax 0677 has reinserted it with the totally nonsensical rationale of "all links are temporary". This is far from the only issue I've had with this user of late, and I would appreciate input. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The author of this article quotes an analyst, named Shimon Shapira on explaining a detailed chain of command in ordering the Beirut bombings that involves Iranian officials. This is while President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger even years after the incident admits Iran or Syria's involvement is not certain(look for "that you're not certain were involved"). My question is whether mmedia.me can be a reilable source for this edit.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 07:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I am developing an article about Vietnamese movie and consider to add content for the Marketing section. Some content may be referenced from Official Facebook pages because no publication in Vietnam mention them (in Vietnam, there is no page like US's PR Newswire to publish a press release). Is Facebook OK to be used? These page owners, which are company and restaurant, are partnering with the movie and promote it.— Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 14:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Facebook is the only source I can find these information :(( — Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a policy for the list of banned UK newspapers: those which MUST NOT be used as sources in BLP articles, under threat of blocking?
We have WP:DAILYMAIL - although searching will show that it is still widely used. When was the Daily Mirror banned? The Daily Express? Any others? Is there a scale of penalties for how long the blocks should be when such references have been posted? Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
At Gilad Atzmon
the first part of this excision removed sources,ostensibly cited from the author's blurb back page. I think the excising editor has a point, though it is not formulated as a wiki policy.
Since the two scholars in question John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk cited on the blurb for their impressions, were, on the book's publication, attacked by authors of RS we use for the article, can we use the secondary/tertiary source quoting those blurbs for their content. I.e., can the blurb content be cited from the following article whose presence on the page is questioned by no one.
and from
Neutral third party input would be appreciated. Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani ( talk) 19:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Are we able to reference an article written on Medium.com? I think based on what I have read on here from a past discussion, the answer is no. So I would like to present this dilemma. I have other references are great, and I plan to use them. Only, one single line I want to say about the person is not provided anywhere else but on Medium. Maybe I am being too cautious, but I am new and have only edited before. The person is referred as an entrepreneur in the referenced articles. However, the person is really more than an entrepreneur. She is also the founder of her two companies but the other three references do not actually state that. Am I making too much of this and need to just say what the person is? Jrayewrites ( talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The publisher describes the book as "The memoirs of a German general...". A 1996 review in War in History includes:
The article is largely cited to the source above, including the discussion of the subject's ideological leanings, beliefs and self-assessment. Examples:
Given the extensive citing of the source, the issues of WP:Weight and WP:POV also come to mind. Take this statement:
Given what is now known about the extent of the implementation of the Commissar order, the statement, even when presented as a claim by the subject, strikes me as undue. (See for example: Felix Römer#Research on the Commissar Order).
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the rest of the review cited above, but it seems sufficient to establish that the source, a biography cum memoir, written/edited by the relative of the subject, does not meet the requirement for reliable, independent, third-party sources. The discussion the Talk page has stalled, so I'm reaching out here for additional input. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Responding to various points:
adulatory, especially as far as Haller's writing is concerned. I could email the review to anyone interested.
@Largely Recyclable: A bit more good faith would be appreciated (re: “substantially skewed”, etc). I included the excerpts because they highlighted the dual nature of the work – biography/introduction by Heller, followed by Strecker’s own writings – and gave the key piece of information, namely that Haller is the relative of the subject. Until I see additional reviews, I also reserve my judgement on your assessment of every academic review
of the book that you've seen being adulatory
.
General comments: The concern is whether the source, with an obvious conflict of interest, is suitable for statements in Wikipedia’s voice. Haller is not a professional historian; he’s an archivist by education, and while he’s qualified to compile his grandfather’s writings into a memoir, he’s probably not the right person to analyse the motivations of a German general during a tumultuous era. It’s unclear whether Haller’s editorial interpretations are correct; it’s possible that they are clouded by conscious or unconscious bias.
Here are several statements of concern, in addition to what I listed at the top of the discussion; they are cited to Haller and Mitcham (via Haller):
In general, the article comes across as taking the Haller / Strecker / Mitcham sources at face value. They create, as Krammer’s review puts it, a picture of the general as “larger than life”. This sort of value judgements (abhorrence, soldierly duty, ethics) and editorialising language (in spite of, nonetheless, while) should be reduced / removed.
In addition, if these details and interpretations can only be found in a biased source, then their inclusion may be undue. I bring up the Commissar Order example again. It's likely that 100% of generals who served on the Eastern Front claimed that they ignored the order, countermanded it, did not pass it onto the troops, etc. It’s now known that 85% of the Wehrmacht Ostheer divisions implemented it, so Strecker’s claim is both unsurprising and extraordinary at the same time. In order to include this claim, we should really corroborate it via 3rd party sources.
Additional example (from the lead): [Strecker’s] religious beliefs and ethics caused strain with, and sometimes outright defiance of, the Nazi regime. In contrast, Krammer’s review linked above contains: “Strecker’s resulting National Socialist sympathies were all too common”. So, which one was it – “lack of political support for the Nazis” or “National Socialist sympathies”? Well, it could be both, depending on the timeframe or the interpretation of the materials, but I’m currently inclined to believe Krammer more than Haller.
Hope this clarifies my concerns. I can provide more statements that I would consider contentious, undue or not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia’s voice. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Still waiting for the reviews… -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This was archived without comment. I need help to clarify a policy issue, so repost it here.
At Gilad Atzmon, material from a book's blurb was excluded, on the grounds that we don't cite blurbs.
I.e. editors cannot cite comments from a book's back jacket, in one admin's judgement. I'm fine with this, save for an ambiguity. The blurbs in question became controversial, and many articles subsequently cited them and their authors. Are these authoritative RS criticizing the blurbs and their authors usable for the blurb contents or not? Nishidani ( talk) 17:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Joe Ricketts just closed the local news sites DNAInfo and Gothamist (along with several other sites), and in one fell swoop, also decided to pull the site's archives also (replacing it with the closure notice), meaning we're left with probably a good number of pages where items are sourced to those sites, so archive conversions are definitely going to be needed to maintain the sourcing. Nate • ( chatter) 22:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Houston Press, a weekly alternative newspaper in Houston, is having a case of severe downsizing as almost all of its staff was let go: https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/11/03/houston-press-ends-print-product-cuts-staff.html and http://www.houstonpress.com/news/saying-goodbye-to-the-houston-press-in-print-9931333 - The paper is jettisoning its salaried staff in exchange for freelance writers.
I used the paper as a reliable source in Houston-related local interest articles (particularly in the arts and culture), but the loss of salaried employees and any decline in editorial standards means I may not be able to use post-October 2017 articles as sources. I think it's good for people to note severe downsizes of staff and/or financial problems at newspapers.
On a more personal note I liked the paper and will miss its print version :( WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm breaking down some new sources for the article ( discussion here), and am not sure what to make of the crunchbase.com/person information added here. It looks to me like crunchbase.com is at least semi-automatically aggregating such profiles, not identifying where they are getting their information, and drawing heavily on public relations pieces. My initial thoughts are to treat it as a non-independent, primary source and to use it only to find information to consider for inclusion after better sources are found.
Used together with the GeekWire source, I think it's clear that Naveen_Jain is outdated as far as indicating all the noteworthy ventures that Jain is involved. There are NPOV issues to be addressed on where to include such info in the article and with what weight.
The article has a history of blatant coi problems, and I'd appreciate help. (I'd rather just step away and let someone else do the main reworking as we did in 2015.) -- Ronz ( talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Sources:
Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion
Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."
The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:
The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found-- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. -- Nug ( talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:
This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.
Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @ Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This document [I] foundcomes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman ( talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
My browser redirects http://www.library.nashville.org/research/res_nash_history_mayors.asp to the Wikipedia article, List of mayors of Nashville, Tennessee. Is this the case for you too? Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's the last non-redirect version: http://web.archive.org/web/20160314070753/http://www.library.nashville.org/research/res_nash_history_mayors.asp - I'm archiving it WhisperToMe ( talk) 12:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Quick question: is this source here reliable to use it on the page for Growing the Big One? I am currently using it for the article; I am considering putting it up for FAC and I would like to know that source would cause an issue. Thank you in advance and have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 ( talk) 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you please examine sources in my proposed addition to the Monero article - User:Fireice/Monero_Sandbox?
Even through I have a COI ( User:Fireice) due to cryptocurrency holdings, I tried to keep a NPOV and include critical sources.
Most of the sources are academic papers, some are self-published, here is a breakdown:
Fireice ( talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned that none of the cited sources in this article /info/en/?search=World_Academy_of_Science,_Engineering_and_Technology as of 11/06/17, on which the content of the article depend, are RS. Please could more experienced editors advise on the best course of action. Thanks. Tonyinman ( talk)
Do HotNewHipHop [49] and Salute Magazine [50] count as reliable sources because they do published news, album reviews and other things. HotNewHipHop have been used in multiple hip hop related articles as an reliable source, but it's not on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Are these sources are reliable or not? TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 18:27, 7 November 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 225 | ← | Archive 230 | Archive 231 | Archive 232 | Archive 233 | Archive 234 | Archive 235 |
Is right-wing think tank Accuracy in Media, run by this guy, an appropriate source for allegations that a living person is a propagandist for Russia? This source would not be used when it alleges against liberals (most of its work) but apparently when it makes extreme claims about other conservatives that's fair game, says MjolnirPants, who thinks he can make the source not right-wing by saying "no it's not" (see page history). Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 18:14, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Yes, the link I provided from the SPLC: "For more than 30 years at Accuracy in Media (AIM), a right-wing outfit opposed to the "liberal" media, Kincaid has cranked out reams of material — rife with innuendo and speculation but light on facts —aimed at buttressing his far-right, xenophobic and homophobic views." You would not find such a source on a BLP of anyone else so why here? Anarcho-authoritarian ( talk) 18:28, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
Accuracy in Media and Cliff Kincaid are not usable for anything in a BLP, e.g.:
Editors who restored this source in a BLP over objections should be cautioned that future violations will result in sanction. James J. Lambden ( talk) 19:24, 30 September 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with Alex Jones and his loyalties to whatever cause, but Accuracy in Media is an organization promoting conspiracy theories. Among their previous claims:
It is not a reliable source even for what it states about itself. Dimadick ( talk) 11:44, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
This right here: [2] is evidence enough that Alex is not a reliable source. His lawyers have already said that he plays a "character" for entertainment purposes. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:57, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
What makes BuzzFeed and Amazon.com RS? The former site looks like a venue for self-publishing to me. They're being used at the Final Destination 3 article, which is currently being evaluated against the site's Featured Article standards. SLIGHTLY mad 05:52, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Buzzfeed is a source for journalist-style information, an editorial board, and a decent reputation for accuracy. Though it has been known for deleting material which criticize the companies which advertise on it, in particular Unilever, Hasbro, Microsoft, and Pepsi.
Amazon.com is a company's website about the products it has on sale. It is not a third-party source. It does not provide in-depth coverage on anything, does not have a reputation for accuracy, ans it is rather light on facts. I doubt that it is even close to a reliable source. In which articles is it used for sourcing? Dimadick ( talk) 12:11, 4 October 2017 (UTC)
Amazon.com should be treated as a perennial website. There was a discussion started on this here: Wikipedia talk:External links/Perennial websites#Another list or an expansion of this one? (Amazon, iTunes, etc) as the upcoming release dates are accurate. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 17:53, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Hi everyone. i wanna ask for this article, despite we don't know names of writers of this article, is this article reliable for Sarmatians studies ? can we use it for articles in wikipedia ? does president of Encyclopædia Britannica give permission to everybody (whom didn't passed academic course) to edit and change content of such this articles? -- Rostam2 ( talk) 13:13, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
Not sure if this is the right noticeboard, but it's ref-related nonetheless. At Ken Norton and Muhammad Ali vs. Ken Norton, an editor has inserted content—sources, apparently—but none of it is formatted correctly, or at all for that matter. It's just bare text, and some of it even instructs the reader to use Google of all things: [4], [5]. It shouldn't be up to others to fix formatting for mass edits like that. Should I revert and point them to a guideline? Mac Dreamstate ( talk) 19:09, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The question arises on Itamar, an Israeli settlement on the occupied Palestinian West Bank. ARIJ states which Palestinian villages have had land confiscated from them, to be given to Itamar.
I added the info, link, but it was removed, with the edit line "A polemic think tank is not a RS." As people can see: The webpage I tried to add is funded by the Spanish Agency for International Development Cooperation.
Needless to say, this is straight in the middle of WP:ARBPIA-land...
Feedback from outsiders will be appreciated, thanks! Huldra ( talk) 20:39, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
I think the issue can be handled by careful phrasing and attribution. Itamar, like all settlements in the West Bank, is illegal under international law. We don't need the ARIJ to tell us this part. We can attribute to ARIJ the claims by Palestinians that it took over land from nearby villages. Other sources which flesh out the details are this B'Tselem source, and this article (from 2003) might also be useful to describe the evolution of Itamar: according to the story, until the Second Intifada, Itamar existed alongside Palestinian villages, but didn't directly take over the land from Yanun. However, after the violence after 2000, the situation changed. It quotes some Palestinians as saying that armed settlers prevented them from harvesting olives. It also quotes a spokesperson for Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:29, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
This book also goes into a little bit of detail on Itamar. Kingsindian ♝ ♚ 05:39, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
The issue is there is academic consensus that king Narakasura's is of Mithila (region) (Videha)( India) origin. Paromita Das (2005) andis faculty in Gauhati University, India; has hardly written any academic works before. In her chapter "The Naraka Legends, Aryanisation and the "varnasramadharma in the Brahmaputra Valley" in 'Proceedings of the Indian History Congress' of 'Indian History Congress' she wrote that king Naraka is a local chief from Brahmaputra Valley region of India and not from Mithila. The relevant discussion is at Talk:Bhauma_dynasty#Naraka's origins.
My question is how wikipedia treats isolated studies by non-experts when it goes against long established scholarly consensus among mainstream academicians. भास्कर् Bhagawati Speak 18:20, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
A new editor has been persistently editing James Craven (American actor) to insert and reinsert unsourced information that contradicts the article's only existing source, such as that he was born in Canada rather than Pennsylvania and that he died about 20 years later than claimed — and their only "source" for the changed information is "I knew him" (which isn't convincing if we can't prove that who the editor really knew isn't some other person who merely happened to have the same name). But conversely, the article's only existing source is his IMDb profile, which isn't considered a reliable source either because it can also contain errors.
I've protected the article for the time being, but since the vast majority of his roles listed in the IMDb profile seem to be either minor guest roles or entirely uncredited appearances as unnamed characters, it's not even clear that he would pass WP:NACTOR at all — but a proper WP:BEFORE test would require checking American media of the 1940s and 1950s, which is not a type of resource I have access to at all as I only have access to Canadian newspaper databases for that era. So could somebody with historical US newspaper access run a sourcing check to see if the article's an WP:AFD candidate or not? Thanks. Bearcat ( talk) 17:46, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
Following on this now-archived thread...
This is about a specific use of the "wiki what" ref in the T.J. Miller article as follows:
Todd Joseph "T.J." [1] Miller (born June 4, 1981) is an American actor, comedian, producer, and writer. [2]
References
This is citation #1 in the article. It is putatively a source for the spelling of the initials without a space ("T.J." not "T. J."), but as the NYT ref shows - which is already provided and plenty enough reliable -- the name is spelled without a space. Similarly every other ref in the article spells it without a space - a fact also noted by BrillLyle here. So this brings no value and is just refspam, and we should not cite it here.
Thoughts? Jytdog ( talk) 05:21, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
we'll see what happens with the next episode or whateverIs this going to be a weekly issues or whatever time period the show is. Emir of Wikipedia ( talk) 20:36, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Is the Washington Times RS for the following, the article in question is Patriot Prayer
Valerie Richardson writing in the Washington Times has said that critics of Gibson have argued that his rallies, even though they are not sponsored by white nationalists do attract those with racist outlooks. The SPLC have noted that the organizers of the 7 August 2017 rally had “promised the critics who talked with them that racist elements had been denounced and uninvited from the rally.” but that the Proud Boys, and members of Identity Evropa (IE) as well as local IE leader, Jake Van Ott were seen at the event. Gibson says that people who are affiliated with IE have appeared at his events, but has made it clear they were unwelcome and has ejected them when possible. Gibson also says “It’s a constant problem because we get these random people that are trying to provoke and they’re trying to agitate,”
Given I have attributed it to both the article author as well as the newspaper I'm not seeing an issue with it, thoughts please Darkness Shines ( talk) 22:32, 8 October 2017 (UTC)
Just to be clear: the proposed paragraph is meant to be the opening paragraph in this section. While I agree there isn't necessarily anything wrong with the paragraph as representative of Gibson's response to criticism (and the paragraph adequately cites the response as Gibson's own words), a few editors (including myself) have objected to DS's proposal to open the section with it as there are many, reliable secondary sources that comment on what Patriot Prayer is. Publishing Gibson's response to the portrayal of the group without first giving an accurate portrayal of the group seems both nonsensical and undue. The discussion is ongoing at the talk page where I would invite DS to address the point, as I don't think RSN is the appropriate place for it, nor should consensus here that the sourcing isn't problematic lead DS to believe that his suggested placement within the overview is supported by it. 207.222.59.50 ( talk) 14:45, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
( edit conflict) Recent discussions are here and here. Doug Weller talk 15:56, 9 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello. Is Daily Kos a reliable source please? I'd like to add some content about Wharton professor William T. Kelley, but I can't find a better source than this so far. So if it's not reliable, it could be "fake news"! Zigzig20s ( talk) 06:35, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
To settle a difference of opinion on blue, some opining is requested. SiefkinDR ( talk · contribs) is insisting that we need to provide a citation for blue being the colour of the sky, and referencing it with a dictionary. I am insisting otherwise. I also have a problem with the phrase"[blue] the colour of the clear sky" as it isn't at sunset or sunrise or night for that matter. Using a dictionary to cite this I am not thrilled about. The colour pages are deathly quiet so more opinions would be good. We have similar issues at white and red..... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 10:53, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
A dictionary is a terrible source for that fact. I see no reason to cite this in the lede; the implicit citation through the hyperlink to Rayleigh scattering and discussion in the article body (under "Why the sky and sea appear blue") is more than sufficient. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 15:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
This is a problem on some other colour pages - e.g. yellow, the same user has prominently "[yellow] is the color of ripe lemons and many egg yolks" cited to the OED...which I am concerned is too general and is possibly incorrect (some eggyolks are more orange..as are some ripe lemons I've seen too...and I have no idea about eggyolks of other animals other than chickens). Hence my preferred is "Many fruit are yellow when ripe, such as lemons and bananas, their color derived from carotenoid pigments. Egg yolks gain their color from xanthophylls, also a type of carotenoid pigment" which doesn't go so far as to assume all eggyolks are yellowbut does discuss them. Anyhoo... Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:06, 10 October 2017 (UTC)
The OED apparently says red is the colour of rubies, blood and strawberries, but I am not happy with the inaccuracy as venous blood can be more purple blue..crustacean blood is blue, many rubies are more pink than red and strawberries have little tan seeds all over them and white bits too. Again, my response is talk about pigments etc. in para 3 of lead...what do others think? Cas Liber ( talk · contribs) 11:14, 10 October 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.
Source: Gunter, Booth; Kizzire, Jamie (April 21, 2016). Gunter, Booth, ed. "Whose heritage? Public Symbols of the Confederacy". Southern Poverty Law Center. Retrieved October 6, 2017
Article: List of Confederate monuments and memorials
Content: This report is composed of two parts which are cited in the article, a compiled list of Confederate monuments and an analysis of their effects and purpose. Two separate issues are being debated at Talk:List of Confederate monuments and memorials:
1. Is the SPLC report a reliable source for the name and location of a monument, without verification from another source?
2. Is the SPLC report a reliable source for analysis such as "Most of these (monuments) were put up either during the Jim Crow era or during the Civil Rights movement, times of increased racial tension"? – dlthewave ☎ 22:53, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
conservative bloggers and opinion writers (at least some of whom have ties to the groups listed) and from alt-right types lately. Anmccaff ( talk)
the guy who thinks the Atlantic [is] a slanderous part of the extremist hate wing with a hard-on for the SPLC" will bring out the context; this isn't the first time that Morty tried poisoning the well here, nor the first that Fyddlestix acquiesced to it. Anmccaff ( talk) 02:13, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
the extremist hate wing's hard-on for slandering the SPLCwith "well said." Anmccaff ( talk) 02:45, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
Cheers Markbassett ( talk) 20:41, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
The SPLC report is not a RS for the Jim Crow linewhat's wrong with the passage on page 11 of the pdf, which clearly says there were two distinct pikes in monument building, and that "the first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society." The same paragraph also says that the spike lasted until about 1920, and also says that the second spike coincided with the civil rights movement, as it "led to a backlash among segregationists". That paragraph would seem to verify the sentence under discussion here just fine.
3. (Added by request after previous comments were received) As an organization that relies on donations, does the SPLC have a financial interest that may cause it to present the material in a biased way? – dlthewave ☎ 01:12, 14 October 2017 (UTC) BOLDly moving this question to its own subsection. Feel free to revert. Pinging @ Dlthewave:. Ca2james ( talk) 04:00, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
The first began around 1900, amid the period in which states were enacting Jim Crow laws to disenfranchise the newly freed African Americans and re-segregate society. This spike lasted well into the 1920s, a period that saw a dramatic resurgence of the Ku Klux Klan, which had been born in the immediate aftermath of the Civil War.Yup, that had something to do with it, alright, but it also reflected the recovery of the southern economy, the fact that aged veterans were looking back to their youth -a sort of "we were rebels once, and young." It also reflected the universal self-justification of old fights that Lifton captured in "Revolutionary Immortality;" survivors assuage any guilt with the knowledge that their friends must have died in a great cause; only the next generation can ever widely question that. Finally, it ignores both the fact that several namings were simple memorials to the dead, and others also reflected later actions. Consider, for example the William F. Perry Monument. Is this an celebration of white supremacy? A monument to an old soldier? an memorial of a well-respected teacher? Nahh, it's an effin' gravestone is what it is, when you get down to it. Is the John B. Castleman Monument about a Confederate officer...or a United States one? Or is it about the man himself, damned if he isn't wearing civvies, by the look of it. Is the Palmyra massacre memorial possibly just partly about people seen as killed in an unfair sort of way? is the Fayetteville Arsenal marker only about the Confederate history? Are all the things in Lee County, SC named for Marse Robert, or are perhaps a couple of them named for the county itself?
here's a picture of the Palmyra monumentReally? the Palmyra monument is a big, nearly blank white thing - I guess that might be the white supremacy angle? - with the words "You have either reached a page that is unavailable for viewing or reached your viewing limit for this book?" Delphic, that.
How about the Haywood Shepherd monument in WV, memorial to a man killed on October 16, 1859, before there was a CSA? It was erected by the notorious UDC, does that make it a memorial to the CSA? Also you really are not concerned that the SPLC graph, and thus ours, only uses a bit over one half of the monuments they collected? And that they did not collect many others? Carptrash ( talk) 16:02, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
"Scratch a group complaining about the SPLC, and there's a 99.9% likelihood you'll find a hate group." Let's see. I am complaining about the SPLC therefore there is a 99.9% chance that I'm in a hate group. Okay, I'll go somewhere else and thanks for the textbook example of on-line bullying. Another shining wikipedia moment. Carptrash ( talk) 21:08, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
I am a mite suspicious that the publisher of this article may be an unreliable publisher, considering that it was considered a potential predatory publisher. On the other hand this particular item is also on ResearchGate. Some additional uses exist (one of which states that the group may be self-publishing). Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 19:26, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
I've been using this website quite a bit for the Bakyt Torobayev page. It's a news agregator -- so it collects and reposts newspaper reports online from various sources in Central Asian countries. What do folks think about the reliability of such website? It is hard to examine the reliability of the content behind what has been posted. Per this, I also just found out that it translates Kyrgyz articles into Russian for the sake of accessibility. My name isnotdave ( talk/ contribs) 09:20, 15 October 2017 (UTC)
Regarding the article for Leatherface (2017 film), we have two sources stating that the film will receive a home video release internationally in December 2017. However, these are international news sites and I have no idea if they are reliable. One is called DVD-Forum.at (which claims to be a magazine and not a literal forum), while the other is Blairwitch.de. Help? Dark Knight 2149 21:07, 17 October 2017 (UTC)
I ran into this at Bamboo network, where The Global Bell Curve by Richard Lynn and published by Washington Summit Publishers, which is run byh Richard B. Spencerand specializes in white nationalist and far-right books is used 10 times to back statements on "economic clout" and history. I raised this with the editor who added it, Backendgaming ( talk · contribs) who replied "I've read and have a PDF version of the book and it certainly contains an enormous amount of reliable sociological data that is consistent and congruent with the economic success of the Overseas Chinese in Southeast Asia with regards to the Bamboo network article. I have not seen any element of white nationalism as the book presents rational arguments based on logical data presented in an easily readable form that's hard to refute, though I see that the data extrapolated from the samples were rather sloppy without considering social and political implementations. The author Richard Lynnand the publisher Washington Summit Publishers seems controversial but it seems to act as a litmus test to the open-mindedness of advocates of political correctness as well as liberals who want to provocatively shut down any attempt to discredit any sort of compelling evidence that backs up a cogent argument by using terms such as white nationalism against observation-based logic that runs completely counter to the egalitarian narratives of liberal orthodoxy of the politically correct."
He's also used the source at History of the Jews in China, Chinese people in Myanmar, Hoa people, Chinese Cambodian, Thai Chinese and probably others. Doug Weller talk 10:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I think we should use this as we would any partisan or heavily disputed source. That is, attribute it as the author's claims where the author's views would be notable rather than stating them as fact, and prefer better and less disputed sources for questions of fact. Seraphimblade Talk to me 13:05, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
Wow. Nothing published by Washington Summit should be considered a RS for facts. Maybe as a source for the authors (attributed) opinion but most of what they publish is FRINGE anyway, which means that including such views is going to be UNDUE (as I would argue it is in this case) unless it's for an article about white nationalism or other racist ideologies & views. This should go without saying tbh - the idea that this press has anything remotely resembling the editorial oversight and control we expect RS to have is laughable. Fyddlestix ( talk) 13:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
There are plenty of publishers out there that have their POV on certain topics clearly visible, but we don't rule those out the books they publish due to that view.Those publishers don't openly espouse (and exist to spread) racial hatred. Sorry but that's a major false equivalence and a lousy argument. Fyddlestix ( talk) 15:23, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
I am not familiar with the publisher, which seems to be active for about 11 years and does not seem to have much of a reputation. I am much more familiar with Richard Lynn, primarily known for his support of eugenics and as a modern representative of scientific racism. Lynn has an axe to grind, and several of his studies so far are considered to have been based on flawed or fabricated data. Lynn thinks that he can determine the "national IQ" of every country on the planet by using samples of what the population scored in an IQ test. But his samples are statistically small, they are not representative of the general population, and the persons sampled may be too young to perform well in the test. His estimate on the national IQ of Egypt, for example, was based on a sample of 129 students, all aged between 6 and 12-years-old. See: https://www.nature.com/hdy/journal/v92/n4/full/6800418a.html
He has also published estimates on both the IQ and the GDP of various countries in the year 1820, a century prior to the creation of of the IQ test. It is rather unclear on what he based his estimates on. Among the problems with his estimates, is that Lynn does not take into account the social background of the people tested and its effects on their education. As pointed by K. Richardson, students originating from the middle class often have better educational opportunities than their peers. But Lynn ignores that. After pointing other flaws in Lynn's data and conclusions, Richardson concludes that Lynn's thesis "is not so much science, then, as a social crusade." Dimadick ( talk) 10:35, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Text and sources: According to the New York Times, The Independent, and academic experts, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims attacks. [1] [2] [3]
References
Despite a widespread view that the Islamic State opportunistically claims attacks with which it has little genuine connection, its track record — minus a handful of exceptions — suggests a more rigorous protocol. At times, the Islamic State has gotten details wrong, or inflated casualty figures, but the gist of its claims is typically correct.
It has been accused of opportunistically or falsely linking itself to atrocities, but no investigations have so far disproved Isis' claims and analysts say it is in the group's interest to maintain Amaq's apparent credibility.
According to Michaël Dantinne, Professor of Criminology at ULG, the terrorist organization always scrupulously analyzes assaults and attacks before taking credit.
Text is used in 2017 Brussels attack article, here
The immediate disagreement is on the 2017 Brussels attack article.
Islamic State has claimed responsibility for this attack via one of its standard channels Amaq News Agency, (that ISIS has claimed the attack is not disputed).
The dispute is mainly whether the three sources above support the proposition that Amaq/ISIS "is usually accurate when it claims attacks". I contend that even if attributed to NYT and the Independent and the expert named in the third source, the sources support several conclusions, including that ISIS' "track record .... suggests a more rigorous protocol" (than the "widespread view" that it "opportunistically claims attacks"), that the (unspecified) "gist" of their claims is "typically correct", that "no investigations have so far disproved Isis’ claims" and that ISIS "always scrupulously analyzes assaults and attacks before taking credit". However, IMO it is a gross over-simplification to render this as ISIS is "usually accurate".
The same sources have been used in several other terrorist-related discussions and I am keen to establish WHAT these sources support, since this affects numerous other terrorist-related articles and the credibility of ISIS claims across a broad, and very contentious, subject area.
There is a seperate issue of whether it is appropriate to discuss ISIS credibility in THIS article, (as opposed to somewhere in the Amaq/ISIS pages) previous discussion on talk is here. Thankyou Pincrete ( talk) 17:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC) Please ping if any response is needed from me.
In June 2017, German police arrested a A 23 year old Syrian man identified only as Mohammed G., accusing him of passing on information to the Amaq News Agency about this and other events since 2014. German police accused Mohammad G. of communicating with the alleged perpetrator of the Malmö arson attack on social media. According to the German prosecutor’s office, “One day after this attack, the accused demanded from his contact person (in Sweden) a personal claim of this deed..., The background was that Amaq did not want to issue a report about the attack without such a claim”.
Following the arrest of Mohammad G., Shiraz Maher, deputy director of the International Center for the Study of Radicalization at King’s College, London, said "We’ve all assumed that they are reading news reports, and then saying, ‘Our guy did this.’ But this is interesting because this does show that they clearly have someone, who is one of their guys, and who is getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our name”.
And, yes, I think it does support these article do support the claim as I phrased it:"According to the
New York Times and
The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack.", albeit not the statement now in the article as cited by Pincrete.
E.M.Gregory (
talk) 09:12, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
If I remember the chronology correctly:
In sum, no, "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack" is not suitable content the 2017 Brussels attack article: it gives too much weight to the ISIS speculation (which can neither be proven nor disproven at this point), and which is maybe no more than 10% of the speculation about the attack's causes in reliable sources (there being more than one reliable newspaper in Belgium of course). Especially the New York Times and The Independent, not speaking about this incident, should not be ushered in to give that minority view WP:UNDUE weight. -- Francis Schonken ( talk) 10:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Reply to E.M.Gregory, I did not select any of these quotes, they were the ones presented by XavierItzm as part of the discussion on talk, which he claimed supported the text in the quote box above. If some other part of the sources given supports the claims, rather than accuse me of being 'selective', please point out where such support can be found. Please don't 'explain' the momentous significance of the arrest in Germany, since the 'significance' is patently your own invention.
The most that could possibly be claimed from the sources discussing the 'German' arrest is that since the arrest, some commentators have speculated that ISIS/Amaq is probably/possibly more careful, and sometimes more reliable about some matters than widely thought and may have checking mechanisms, or fact checkers in place in Europe. It takes an inordinate number of logical 'leaps into the dark' to get from that to Amaq/ISIS is "generally accurate about" .... anything, especially about ISIS involvement in a different attack, in a different country, not even mentioned in the first two sources.
Equally, if, in your opinion, the sources endorse 'your' reading (namely, "According to the New York Times and The Independent, Amaq is usually accurate when it claims affiliation with an individual who has carried out an attack."). Perhaps you can point to where in the articles, claims of "affiliation", are discussed AT ALL, let alone such a huge 'dragnet' claim as 'your' text represents. Pincrete ( talk) 19:25, 29 September 2017 (UTC) … … ps The quote you supply above from Shiraz Maher, which ends: "getting verification and confirming that this attack was in our (ie ISIS') name” is immediately followed by, Maher "cautioning that the (German) news release mentioned only a single example" (ie Malmö, not Brussels nor anywhere else). The very expert quoted above is specifically cautioning against reaching any 'general' conclusion based on such scant evidence. Pincrete ( talk) 21:40, 29 September 2017 (UTC)
Belatedly, one thing that bothers me about this is that two of the three sources presented are worded as debunking a widely-held view (ie. they're worded to say "most people say that ISIS frequently makes false claims about attacks, but this is not true.") Sources like that usually bother me because they imply that what they say is atypical - ie. the wording here implies the existence of many other sources accusing ISIS of falsely claiming responsibility for attacks, which these sources are a response to. I would want to be certain that we'd searched for that and represented the opposing point of view before relying on these for anything. (Even putting aside the WP:SYNTH issue, which I think is obvious.) And if we do use these sources for anything, it would have to be worded to at least acknowledge the common belief that ISIS frequently makes false claims, since two of the three sources talk about it - eg. "Although it is popularly perceived to make opportunistic claims of responsibility for attacks it had nothing to do with, ISIS actually..." Taking the first two sources and parsing them into just "ISIS only claims responsibility for attacks it actually did" without that first part is stripping away vital context. (And it's better for readers, who - if we don't have the first part - will probably say "wait, that can't be right, can it?" Explicitly saying that a commonly-held view is wrong is important.) -- Aquillion ( talk) 20:57, 1 October 2017 (UTC)
Re: Amaq as ISIS's mouthpiece, let's say I create a webpage that documents attacks by North Korea. Things like the assassination of Kim Jong-nam. Let's say that my research is so good that The New York Times compliments me on my track record of accuracy. Would that make me a mouthpiece for Kim Jong-il? Or let's say I documented CIA assassinations. Would that make me a mouthpiece for the CIA? You are suggestion that we accept WP:OR. If you want to claim that Amag is a mouthpiece for ISIS, find some reliable sources that support that claim. Don't ask us to draw conclusions. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 00:48, 2 October 2017 (UTC)
References
Credible, this claim certainly is, assured Michael Dentinne, insofar as it emanates from the official agency of communication of the Islamic State
So do we use them as a source for the LAs Vegas shooting? Slatersteven ( talk) 07:40, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
An editor at Sohyang is suggesting the use of a Korean youtube source and I can't tell if it is RS. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:06, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
The discussion is on my talk page. Tornado chaser ( talk) 18:07, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
There are a number of sources that have been added to this article that seem dubious:
This is about an advert for the subject, rather than the subject, but it's not clear if the source is a RS or if the award is notable."P90X: The Proof" infomercial won a Telly award in 2009
- again about an advert, but it's not clear if the source is a RS or if the award is notable."P90X: The Answer" infomercial won a Moxie award in 2010."P90X: The Answer" infomercial won a Moxie award in 2010.
- however this seems to be from the company that makes and sells P90X, which seems to breach WP:SELFSOURCE, as it makes claims about the alleged benefits of their product.In 2011, the sequel to P90X was released, P90X2. Also a 90-day workout regimen, P90X2 focuses on an applied sports science called Muscle Integration.[6] Instead of working one muscle group at a time, P90X2 uses resistance on unstable platforms to engage more muscles with each movement
- reliability unknown.In December 2013, P90X3 was released and featured 30 minute workouts as opposed to hour-long ones. P90X3 includes 16 routines, and includes yoga, mixed martial arts, Pilates, and plyometrics with upper and lower body workouts.
- Healthcare Global - reliability unknown, but seems to cite P90X advertising.Their advertising claims that "muscle confusion" is believed to prevent the body from adapting to exercises over time, resulting in continual improvement without plateau.
- makers website, breaches WP:SELFSOURCE as above.There are several programs associated with the Power 90 name. Currently for sale are P90, P90X, P90X+, P90X One on One, P90X2, and P90X3. Several others were produced, but are out of print, such as the original Power 90 series that spawned P90X.
Autarch ( talk) 22:48, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Bollywood Life is owned by Essel Group, who also owns DNA India and Zee Media, both of which are considered relaible. Is Bollywood Life a reliable source? 86.97.131.126 ( talk) 13:25, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
Is Encyclopedia.com a reliable source? I'd like to cite this, but there are advertisements, so it doesn't look reliable. If this is a mirror website, could someone please help me find a source website that I could cite? Please ping me when you reply. Thanks! Zigzig20s ( talk) 10:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
There are ads, I don't think we can cite it.Speaking as someone with a slow internet connection who until recently was forced by circumstance to spend a significant amount of wiki-time editing articles related to the entertainment industry that exclusively cite ad-heavy entertainment websites: I wish. Sorry, but commercial websites are no more or less "reliable" for our purposes than websites where there aren't ads. Forgive me if I'm misreading you. Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 10:48, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Encyclopedia.com may be reliable, since its articles often cite their specific sources on any given topic. As an original source, however, it is lacking. According to the Website itself it draws much of its content from posting online previously published material from "credible" printed sources, such as Oxford University Press and Columbia Encyclopedia.
The Donald Pizer article is specifically based on Pizer's entry in Contemporary Authors New Revision Series. It is a published resource containing biographical and bibliographical information "on the world's most-popular authors."
According to the Contemporary Authors entry in Wikipedia, the series started in 1962 and there are biographical entries for at least 120, 000 writers. The work is useful, but the criteria used excludes authors who publish works in languages other than English, and excludes authors who have published their works through vanity presses. So some significant authors may have no entry. The publisher is Gale, a Michigan-based company which specializes in publishing reference works for "public, academic, and school libraries". Gale has changed a number of corporate parents, but the current parent company seems to be Cengage Learning, a Massachusetts-based company which primarily publishes educational material. Dimadick ( talk) 11:12, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
Sorry, I was using the attribution given in Encyclopedia.com. I was not aware Gale had a website. Dimadick ( talk) 10:01, 21 October 2017 (UTC)
I don't know whether he is listed in the 2014 edition you linked. Encyclopedia.com's website lists a 2009 copyright date for Gale, indicating use of an older version. Dimadick ( talk) 16:14, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
I decided to add a section about Free Thinking Forums at the Ali Khamenei's article, but I'm not sure the references are reliable in English wekipedia or not. Does these sources support the text about Free Thinking Forums? first source& secound source Thanks. Saff V. ( talk) 12:02, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
Jax 0677 ( talk · contribs) has been insistent on adding this link as a source in Ded (band). I removed the source because it's an ongoing link that updates throughout the day, and thus will not show the sourced content for more than a week (the link is dated for October 18-24, and states that it was updated on the 25th). As it is a chronically updating link, it cannot be used to verify an individual chart position. Jax 0677 has reinserted it with the totally nonsensical rationale of "all links are temporary". This is far from the only issue I've had with this user of late, and I would appreciate input. Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 19:01, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
The author of this article quotes an analyst, named Shimon Shapira on explaining a detailed chain of command in ordering the Beirut bombings that involves Iranian officials. This is while President Reagan's Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger even years after the incident admits Iran or Syria's involvement is not certain(look for "that you're not certain were involved"). My question is whether mmedia.me can be a reilable source for this edit.-- Kazemita1 ( talk) 07:48, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
I am developing an article about Vietnamese movie and consider to add content for the Marketing section. Some content may be referenced from Official Facebook pages because no publication in Vietnam mention them (in Vietnam, there is no page like US's PR Newswire to publish a press release). Is Facebook OK to be used? These page owners, which are company and restaurant, are partnering with the movie and promote it.— Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 14:05, 25 October 2017 (UTC)
No, it doesn't. Facebook is the only source I can find these information :(( — Phamthuathienvan ( talk) 07:41, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
Is there a policy for the list of banned UK newspapers: those which MUST NOT be used as sources in BLP articles, under threat of blocking?
We have WP:DAILYMAIL - although searching will show that it is still widely used. When was the Daily Mirror banned? The Daily Express? Any others? Is there a scale of penalties for how long the blocks should be when such references have been posted? Andy Dingley ( talk) 18:15, 22 October 2017 (UTC)
At Gilad Atzmon
the first part of this excision removed sources,ostensibly cited from the author's blurb back page. I think the excising editor has a point, though it is not formulated as a wiki policy.
Since the two scholars in question John Mearsheimer and Richard Falk cited on the blurb for their impressions, were, on the book's publication, attacked by authors of RS we use for the article, can we use the secondary/tertiary source quoting those blurbs for their content. I.e., can the blurb content be cited from the following article whose presence on the page is questioned by no one.
and from
Neutral third party input would be appreciated. Thanks in anticipation. Nishidani ( talk) 19:21, 27 October 2017 (UTC)
Are we able to reference an article written on Medium.com? I think based on what I have read on here from a past discussion, the answer is no. So I would like to present this dilemma. I have other references are great, and I plan to use them. Only, one single line I want to say about the person is not provided anywhere else but on Medium. Maybe I am being too cautious, but I am new and have only edited before. The person is referred as an entrepreneur in the referenced articles. However, the person is really more than an entrepreneur. She is also the founder of her two companies but the other three references do not actually state that. Am I making too much of this and need to just say what the person is? Jrayewrites ( talk) 18:57, 1 November 2017 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Invalid |ref=harv
(
help)The publisher describes the book as "The memoirs of a German general...". A 1996 review in War in History includes:
The article is largely cited to the source above, including the discussion of the subject's ideological leanings, beliefs and self-assessment. Examples:
Given the extensive citing of the source, the issues of WP:Weight and WP:POV also come to mind. Take this statement:
Given what is now known about the extent of the implementation of the Commissar order, the statement, even when presented as a claim by the subject, strikes me as undue. (See for example: Felix Römer#Research on the Commissar Order).
Unfortunately, I don't have access to the rest of the review cited above, but it seems sufficient to establish that the source, a biography cum memoir, written/edited by the relative of the subject, does not meet the requirement for reliable, independent, third-party sources. The discussion the Talk page has stalled, so I'm reaching out here for additional input. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:22, 24 October 2017 (UTC)
Responding to various points:
adulatory, especially as far as Haller's writing is concerned. I could email the review to anyone interested.
@Largely Recyclable: A bit more good faith would be appreciated (re: “substantially skewed”, etc). I included the excerpts because they highlighted the dual nature of the work – biography/introduction by Heller, followed by Strecker’s own writings – and gave the key piece of information, namely that Haller is the relative of the subject. Until I see additional reviews, I also reserve my judgement on your assessment of every academic review
of the book that you've seen being adulatory
.
General comments: The concern is whether the source, with an obvious conflict of interest, is suitable for statements in Wikipedia’s voice. Haller is not a professional historian; he’s an archivist by education, and while he’s qualified to compile his grandfather’s writings into a memoir, he’s probably not the right person to analyse the motivations of a German general during a tumultuous era. It’s unclear whether Haller’s editorial interpretations are correct; it’s possible that they are clouded by conscious or unconscious bias.
Here are several statements of concern, in addition to what I listed at the top of the discussion; they are cited to Haller and Mitcham (via Haller):
In general, the article comes across as taking the Haller / Strecker / Mitcham sources at face value. They create, as Krammer’s review puts it, a picture of the general as “larger than life”. This sort of value judgements (abhorrence, soldierly duty, ethics) and editorialising language (in spite of, nonetheless, while) should be reduced / removed.
In addition, if these details and interpretations can only be found in a biased source, then their inclusion may be undue. I bring up the Commissar Order example again. It's likely that 100% of generals who served on the Eastern Front claimed that they ignored the order, countermanded it, did not pass it onto the troops, etc. It’s now known that 85% of the Wehrmacht Ostheer divisions implemented it, so Strecker’s claim is both unsurprising and extraordinary at the same time. In order to include this claim, we should really corroborate it via 3rd party sources.
Additional example (from the lead): [Strecker’s] religious beliefs and ethics caused strain with, and sometimes outright defiance of, the Nazi regime. In contrast, Krammer’s review linked above contains: “Strecker’s resulting National Socialist sympathies were all too common”. So, which one was it – “lack of political support for the Nazis” or “National Socialist sympathies”? Well, it could be both, depending on the timeframe or the interpretation of the materials, but I’m currently inclined to believe Krammer more than Haller.
Hope this clarifies my concerns. I can provide more statements that I would consider contentious, undue or not suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia’s voice. -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 16:21, 28 October 2017 (UTC)
Still waiting for the reviews… -- K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:47, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
This was archived without comment. I need help to clarify a policy issue, so repost it here.
At Gilad Atzmon, material from a book's blurb was excluded, on the grounds that we don't cite blurbs.
I.e. editors cannot cite comments from a book's back jacket, in one admin's judgement. I'm fine with this, save for an ambiguity. The blurbs in question became controversial, and many articles subsequently cited them and their authors. Are these authoritative RS criticizing the blurbs and their authors usable for the blurb contents or not? Nishidani ( talk) 17:32, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Joe Ricketts just closed the local news sites DNAInfo and Gothamist (along with several other sites), and in one fell swoop, also decided to pull the site's archives also (replacing it with the closure notice), meaning we're left with probably a good number of pages where items are sourced to those sites, so archive conversions are definitely going to be needed to maintain the sourcing. Nate • ( chatter) 22:00, 2 November 2017 (UTC)
Houston Press, a weekly alternative newspaper in Houston, is having a case of severe downsizing as almost all of its staff was let go: https://www.bizjournals.com/houston/news/2017/11/03/houston-press-ends-print-product-cuts-staff.html and http://www.houstonpress.com/news/saying-goodbye-to-the-houston-press-in-print-9931333 - The paper is jettisoning its salaried staff in exchange for freelance writers.
I used the paper as a reliable source in Houston-related local interest articles (particularly in the arts and culture), but the loss of salaried employees and any decline in editorial standards means I may not be able to use post-October 2017 articles as sources. I think it's good for people to note severe downsizes of staff and/or financial problems at newspapers.
On a more personal note I liked the paper and will miss its print version :( WhisperToMe ( talk) 09:12, 4 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm breaking down some new sources for the article ( discussion here), and am not sure what to make of the crunchbase.com/person information added here. It looks to me like crunchbase.com is at least semi-automatically aggregating such profiles, not identifying where they are getting their information, and drawing heavily on public relations pieces. My initial thoughts are to treat it as a non-independent, primary source and to use it only to find information to consider for inclusion after better sources are found.
Used together with the GeekWire source, I think it's clear that Naveen_Jain is outdated as far as indicating all the noteworthy ventures that Jain is involved. There are NPOV issues to be addressed on where to include such info in the article and with what weight.
The article has a history of blatant coi problems, and I'd appreciate help. (I'd rather just step away and let someone else do the main reworking as we did in 2015.) -- Ronz ( talk) 16:59, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Sources:
Article: 36th Estonian Police Battalion
Content: "In August 1942, the battalion participated in the murder of Jews in Novogrudok, Belarus."
The relevant Talk page discussion can be found here: Talk:36th_Estonian_Police_Battalion#Novogrudok. Courtesy ping to Nug & Jaan. I would appreciate additional input on this matter. K.e.coffman ( talk) 01:35, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
It appears that the commission does not rule out the possibility that the Police Battalion participated in the massacre. If I'm Google translating it correctly, the opening para of the Estee Ekspress reads:
The report states on page 861 that the 36th Police Battalion was investigated in the Federal Republic of Germany between 1967 to 1971 and no evidence was found-- "no evidence found" does not mean that the commission established that the Police Battalion did not participate. What was the commission's conclusion? (As an aside, I would not put too much weight into a criminal investigation in West Germany in the 1960-10s, due to various reasons, which are too long to get in here). K.e.coffman ( talk) 04:39, 14 April 2017 (UTC)
According to data gathered by Israeli police in September 1963, about 2000 and atleast 3000 Jews were murdered in Diatlovo and Nowogrodek on 6 and 7 August 1942 respectively. There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews. Contemporary researchers accuse the local German gendarmerie, one Lithuanian unit and a Belorussian defence battalion of these specific actions.[163]. Footnote [163] cites Christian Gerlach, Kalkulierte Morde : Die deutche Wirtschafts und Vernichtungspolitik in Wießrußland 1941 bis 1944, Hamburg, 2000, pp. 701-702. -- Nug ( talk) 01:19, 16 April 2017 (UTC)
I tracked down the Commission's conclusions, and here's what the document says:
This is stated on page XXI: Conclusions of the Estonian International Commission for the Investigation of Crimes Against Humanity (PDF). So I really don't see the contradiction between the finding of the Commission, The Encyclopedia of Camps and Ghettos and Yitzhak Arad.
Does the statement "There is no reliable data concerning the participation of members of the 36th Estonian Defence Battalion in the execution of Jews" perhaps refer to the act of actually pulling the trigger? Unless I'm missing something, the sources agree that the Battalion in question was indeed involved. Ping those who have previously participated: @ Nug, Ealdgyth, and Sturmvogel 66: to have a look. K.e.coffman ( talk) 00:02, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
This document [I] foundcomes from the website of the commission http://www.mnemosyne.ee/hc.ee/ and is called "Conclusions of the Commission". Are you saying that the Commission is contradicting its own conclusions? There's got to be more context around this. K.e.coffman ( talk) 10:58, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
@ Nug: any luck? K.e.coffman ( talk) 23:41, 27 April 2017 (UTC)
My browser redirects http://www.library.nashville.org/research/res_nash_history_mayors.asp to the Wikipedia article, List of mayors of Nashville, Tennessee. Is this the case for you too? Zigzig20s ( talk) 07:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
Here's the last non-redirect version: http://web.archive.org/web/20160314070753/http://www.library.nashville.org/research/res_nash_history_mayors.asp - I'm archiving it WhisperToMe ( talk) 12:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
Quick question: is this source here reliable to use it on the page for Growing the Big One? I am currently using it for the article; I am considering putting it up for FAC and I would like to know that source would cause an issue. Thank you in advance and have a wonderful day/night! Aoba47 ( talk) 19:08, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
Can you please examine sources in my proposed addition to the Monero article - User:Fireice/Monero_Sandbox?
Even through I have a COI ( User:Fireice) due to cryptocurrency holdings, I tried to keep a NPOV and include critical sources.
Most of the sources are academic papers, some are self-published, here is a breakdown:
Fireice ( talk) 19:58, 6 November 2017 (UTC)
I'm concerned that none of the cited sources in this article /info/en/?search=World_Academy_of_Science,_Engineering_and_Technology as of 11/06/17, on which the content of the article depend, are RS. Please could more experienced editors advise on the best course of action. Thanks. Tonyinman ( talk)
Do HotNewHipHop [49] and Salute Magazine [50] count as reliable sources because they do published news, album reviews and other things. HotNewHipHop have been used in multiple hip hop related articles as an reliable source, but it's not on WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES. Are these sources are reliable or not? TheAmazingPeanuts ( talk) 18:27, 7 November 2017 (UTC)