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 235 | Archive 236 | Archive 237 | Archive 238 | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | → | Archive 245 |
An entry for Nathaniel Lubell was added as a notable resident in the article for Fort Lee, New Jersey. This source at Sports Reference lists his place of death as Fort Lee, but has no indication that he resided there. This source published in The New York Times explicitly states that "Lubell--Nathaniel, 90 of Fort Lee, NJ died in his home on Sat., Sept. 17th." The paid death notice had been used as a source in his article and I used that same source in the Fort Lee article to support the claim that he was a resident.
Would this source be permissible per WP:SELFPUB as a reliable source solely for this purpose? Alansohn ( talk) 16:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
http://www.eliteprospects.com for hockey related articles? Thoughts appreciated. Gabriel syme ( talk) 21:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I just spent some time stripping out reddit, amazon.com and youtube sources from the Laura Bailey (voice actress) article. I now notice dozens of "credit references" which are pointers to the page in a video where her name appears in the credits. let's say, very roughly, references 69-91. I'll append two examples here:
Are these RS? Should I be asking on the OR noticeboard instead?
References
-- 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 03:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Mankind Quarterly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I wanted to ask whether articles published in the pseudoscientific racist journal Mankind Quarterly is ever reliable, and if so, what content it can be considered reliable to support. I just removed information sourced to an article published in this journal from White Latin Americans, and was wondering if other editors supported this removal and/or removal of similar content from other articles in which this journal is cited (e.g. Memetics, ref. 27). Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
More recently, Axact employees have impersonated Emirati government officials in an effort to extort "legalisation fees" from unsuspecting fake degree and diploma holders in that country.( diff)
I'm not so much interested in the particular content as I am seeking feedback about the reliability of this Emirati weekly print newspaper, XPRESS. Here is their "about" page. They don't post a masthead. Their parent organization appears to be Gulf News, which publishes a daily. This is the only bio I could find of Gulf News' editor-in-chief, no apparent professional journalism experience. I could find no evidence that either of these outlets are cited approvingly by other reliable sources. Perhaps someone proficient in Arabic could investigate this further? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Does Investopedia.com meet RS? Should all investopedia links [2] [3] be deleted, en masse, without further discussion?
In particular, there is a new SPA, TaxAct2018 ( talk · contribs) engaged in doing just that. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This source was cited in the article, but was removed again, because someone decided it was not reliable, though, the comment can be directly traced to the expert himself.
Dr. David Stifter of Maynooth University, himself, posted a response to a Lenore Fischer back in 2011 on the Old Irish L archive. https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=old-irish-l;DyXx1Q;20110806191509%2B0100
Here is Dr. Stifter's page at the Maynooth website: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/people/david-stifter
This is the part in question below. Dr. Stifter's response is the second paragraph starting with "Joe's scepticism stems..."
Subject: Re: Tartessian 2
From: "Dr. David Stifter" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Scholars and students of Old Irish <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:15:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (87 lines)
On 6 Aug 2011 at 17:45, lenore fischer wrote:
>*1. Koch, John (Aberystwyth) ‘A Celtic Verbal Complex in Tartessian?’*
>
>Handout has very detailed translations of the inscriptions: I can scan and
>send this to anyone who’s interested. In the questions afterwards Joseph
>Eska remarked that he still wasn’t convinced that Tartessian is even
>Indo-European. Pretty withering, really.
Joe's scepticism stems partly from the apparent sound inventory of those texts, which suggest to him the possibility of dealing with a language that could be related to Iberian and Basque. Given that acc. to Koch's handout the texts seem to be written in scriptua continua, determining words is of course a very tricky undertaking, and one that already predetermines your results of the reading. Because of some recurrent sequences which do on the surface look very much Indo- European, I do not share Joe's complete scepticism, but I can't see anything particularly Celtic at all. A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place. A.Tamar Chabadi ( talk) 10:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.
Dr. David Stifter certainly meets and surpasses that criteria. He has directed projects concerning Celtic and Old and Middle Irish. He authored several papers and book chapters on Irish and Celtic linguistic developments. He is well more than qualified to comment on John Koch's Celtic language work. He is not being used to source an extraordinary claim. He, himself, is not making an extraordinary claim. He is speaking from his own considerable expertise and post-doctorate education on a matter of Celtic and Irish linguistics. See, his personal page (link provided in an earlier post) for his impressive resume in Celtic and Old and Middle Irish linguistics. Again, he meets and surpasses the criteria set forward in the Exceptions section of WP:USERGENERATED. A.Tamar Chabadi ( talk) 00:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"On November 28, 2015, the couple announced their child Chanel had been born, without specifying the exact date. [1] [2]"
Is this reliably sourced?
Neither source states they did not announce the date. Actually, the instagram post cited refers to another account created earlier which plainly gives the date. babychanelnicole [4]
IMO, there is no reason to assume they did not give the date and there is no basis to assign meaning to the assumption in a BLP.
From where I'm sitting, the birth date is not in any way controversial and we should simply state when the baby was born without claiming they did not say something.
References
I pushed Chanel out in 3 tries! This was taken not 5 minutes after delivery.
- SummerPhD v2.0 14:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The sentence is not "implying" anything. You can infer whatever you like, but the statement as written is objectively factual. Secondly, you say they "clearly" announced a birth date. Where? If you find that, then this entire discussion is moot. I genuinely would love to see that cite so this can all end.
Where is Us Weekly and the other outlets getting their information, if the parents or their reps aren't giving it? "Sources claim" ... "Insiders say" ... "We're confirming (but not saying how)." Those are the anonymous claims from shadowy, unidentified "sources". It's well-established WP:BLP requires a higher standard than "anonymous sources say". -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit some feedback about this book, The Honest Drug Book, which is used as a reference on numerous recreational drug topics (mostly drug and plant articles, as far as I can tell). I don't have access to the book itself, but can only judge it by what I can find others' saying about it. Amazon.com ( https://www.amazon.com/Honest-Drug-Book-Chemical-Botanical/dp/0995593604) describes the author merely as an "explorer", not noting any relevant education or scientific expertise (pharmacology, botany, etc.) Based on that page, the book's contents appear to be mainly subjective experiences. The description of it presenting "hidden truths" also raises my concern about possible WP:FRINGE content. My first impression is that it definitely shouldn't be used for any type of medical-related claims. See for example Celastrus paniculatus, where the book is used as a reference for claims that it is a "stimulant" and of "psychoactivity". However, would it be an acceptable source about more objective facts, such as perhaps the way certain drugs/plants are used recreationally, though? Deli nk ( talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
-
I ADDED ONE OF THOSE REFERENCES
I added one of those references, only to find today that it was removed. I thus find myself here.
I have a copy of the book itself, and can refute most of which is stated above. I would not have edited the page if these were legitimate comments.
It does describe subjective experiences, but these are clearly marked as such. The main thrust of the content is peer confirmed and academically researched information, which again is clearly marked. Nor are the "claims" medical in nature, which seems to be a strange interpretation of recorded historical and scientific data, particularly when used to justify wholescale removal of every reference.
Regarding the publisher and the author I have just performed some checks. I registered for and searched the ISBN at Nielsen. According to this MxZero does seem to be a credible third party publisher or an arm of one. The records there include data on both the book and the publisher. An extract for example -
For the author, I would guess that he retains privacy for the same reasons that I do, specifically, social attitudes to those who take or discuss drugs.
In these circumstances, how would one become a "noted authority"? For example, regarding issues of certain aspects of psychoactivity, and relative psychoactivity, surely a factor in the status of authority would be the personal use of the substance or compound itself. Given this, I suggest that finding a "noted authority" who has thus tested these psychoactive materials in a comparative, relative and scientific sense (as much as is possible) and who's "authority" equals or exceeds that of the author would be virtually impossible. This is why I purchased the book in the first place.
I feel subject context is of particular importance in certain fields, drugs being one of them, and that this has not been taken into account regarding the removal of my reference, and presumably the others.
I am saddened to see this fall, largely because the information is valuable and useful, and certainly worthy of inclusion in any objective and informative platform. I believe that my edit was perfectly valid.
I recognise that my post here will likely be futile, and may not be welcomed, but seeing factual harm reduction and scientific based data blocked from public scrutiny across the mainstream media, which seems to include Wikipedia, is frustrating. This platform should be a conduit for reliable data and not dependent upon the whims and prejudices of society.
I'd like to solicit some feedback about this book, The Honest Drug Book, which is used as a reference on numerous recreational drug topics (mostly drug and plant articles, as far as I can tell). I don't have access to the book itself, but can only judge it by what I can find others' saying about it. Amazon.com ( https://www.amazon.com/Honest-Drug-Book-Chemical-Botanical/dp/0995593604) describes the author merely as an "explorer", not noting any relevant education or scientific expertise (pharmacology, botany, etc.) Based on that page, the book's contents appear to be mainly subjective experiences. The description of it presenting "hidden truths" also raises my concern about possible WP:FRINGE content. My first impression is that it definitely shouldn't be used for any type of medical-related claims. See for example Celastrus paniculatus, where the book is used as a reference for claims that it is a "stimulant" and of "psychoactivity". However, would it be an acceptable source about more objective facts, such as perhaps the way certain drugs/plants are used recreationally, though? Deli nk ( talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
-
I ADDED ONE OF THOSE REFERENCES
I added one of those references, only to find today that it was removed. I thus find myself here.
I have a copy of the book itself, and can refute most of which is stated above. I would not have edited the page if these were legitimate comments.
It does describe subjective experiences, but these are clearly marked as such. The main thrust of the content is peer confirmed and academically researched information, which again is clearly marked. Nor are the "claims" medical in nature, which seems to be a strange interpretation of recorded historical and scientific data, particularly when used to justify wholescale removal of every reference.
Regarding the publisher and the author I have just performed some checks. I registered for and searched the ISBN at Nielsen. According to this MxZero does seem to be a credible third party publisher or an arm of one. The records there include data on both the book and the publisher. An extract for example -
For the author, I would guess that he retains privacy for the same reasons that I do, specifically, social attitudes to those who take or discuss drugs.
In these circumstances, how would one become a "noted authority"? For example, regarding issues of certain aspects of psychoactivity, and relative psychoactivity, surely a factor in the status of authority would be the personal use of the substance or compound itself. Given this, I suggest that finding a "noted authority" who has thus tested these psychoactive materials in a comparative, relative and scientific sense (as much as is possible) and who's "authority" equals or exceeds that of the author would be virtually impossible. This is why I purchased the book in the first place.
I feel subject context is of particular importance in certain fields, drugs being one of them, and that this has not been taken into account regarding the removal of my reference, and presumably the others.
I am saddened to see this fall, largely because the information is valuable and useful, and certainly worthy of inclusion in any objective and informative platform. I believe that my edit was perfectly valid. I also suspect that there is an irony here in that had I added the information without a reference it would most probably have been left in place.
I recognise that my post here will likely be futile, and may not be welcomed, but seeing factual harm reduction and scientific based data blocked from public scrutiny across the mainstream media, which seems to include Wikipedia, is frustrating. This platform should be a conduit for reliable data and not dependent upon the whims and prejudices of society.
It is extremely disappointing that in a field in which Wikipedia presents sometimes dangerous misinformation, in fact potentially fatal misinformation, efforts to address this are so abuptly and irrationally curtailed. I am not sure whether there is an escalation procedure for this sort of issue, but if there is, I suggest that it is invoked.
Hi! Are we not allowed to use a reliable news outlet as a source if their report references a tabloid?
I tried to post sexual assault allegations against Sylvester Stallone on his page. I used BBC News as my source ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42023885), however another user removed it for being unreliable because the article mentions that the police report was published by the Daily Mail.
And if so, would I also not be allowed to use a reliable source that references TMZ? (For example, this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sylvester-stallone-rape-allegation_us_5a3ce122e4b025f99e165ce4) Because the WP:PUS says that TMZ "has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies" and so I wasn't sure if that was considered unreliable or not.
Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I recently (unsuccessfully) nominated an article for deletion. It was my first nomination, the 4th for the article. The discussion brought up many claims of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I was most surprised by the claims about sources. At the time I reviewed them, all of the sources were either blogs, tabloids/weekly tabloids, or “lifestyle” websites. The strongest sources were HuffPost, FHM, Cosmopolitan, and Maxim, but the articles were humorous, opinion pieces, summaries of social media posts, or all of the above. The argument that carried the day (I think) was that for esoteric topics one was allowed / encouraged to use such sources (the topic is esoteric because it’s a fake/satirical holiday, Steak and Blowjob Day, see the talk page for details). My search of the reliable sources archives turned up little or no discussion, so I'm hoping for some guidance. Dictioneer ( talk) 03:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This has been discussed twice before with no real decision being made as to its reliability. Per http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Special:ListGroupRights it is a mediawiki powered site whose registered edits can edit pages. Pages such as http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Soil_Resources_Development_Institute have absolutely no references on them. By clicking on "Random page" a few times this seems to be a common theme. Now on the other hand, there is http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Online_Edition which claims that the material is edited by professors and there is some oversight to it and there is a print version under the same name. There is no link that I can find between the print version and this website. The fact that this is a mediawiki powered site with a user group that can edit pages seems to indicate that this is not a reliable source. But it continues to be used on 50 pages. -- Majora ( talk) 23:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a good reason it is cited in over 2,800 articlesis not a valid argument. We've had plenty of works cited in those sort of volumes that have nonetheless been determined to be unreliable. onefivenine.com is a recent example, as are wikimapia and Google maps, and many British Raj era authors. Dare I add the Daily Mail? For what it is worth, I've long held doubts about Banglapedia, too. - Sitush ( talk) 10:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this [18] open access journal RS? Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Elizabeth Michael is an actress who has been convicted of manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, actor Steven Kanumba. I've been debating with several users over the last few weeks over an assertion I added to the article that Michael admitted during her testimony in court that she did push him during an argument. (Two of them tried to remove any mention of the conviction from the article altogether! So I didn't grant them much credence, as they were clearly working to an outrageous extreme to keep negative material out of the article. My current correspondent hasn't done that.)
I sourced this claim to two apparently reliable sources. Those who've taken issue with this are insisting that these sources aren't reliable. I don't think any of them has provided alternative sources that explicitly say Michael didn't admit, during her testimony, to pushing Kanumba, only sources that don't mention her saying anything about it at all. (For what it's worth, in her statement at the time of her arrest several years before the trial, it does appear that she denied having pushed him.)
It may be that three different people just don't want to believe what these two sources wrote, or it may be that the sources are generally known to be unreliable, or it may be that they happen to be wrong in this case. I don't know, but I thought I'd present the situation for consideration here to get more opinions.
See my latest discussion about this on my talk page, User talk:Largoplazo#Wrong source. Largoplazo ( talk) 15:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I see my inquiry has gotten no traction. In case it helps, the sources attesting her admission to having pushed him are:
— Largoplazo ( talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you understand swahili?!! Why do they have to say that"Michael admitted to having pushing Kanumba" and Michael herself didn't admit in the court ,they have reported what Michael said in the court and not what they think or guess as the source you use which are outside Tanzania that were definitely not in the court .I'll repeat this the source you use show she won ZIFF award for Foolish Age which is not true she won for Woman of Principles.It's clear they know nothing about Michael Candy78 ( talk)
If you don't want to believe them,and you want to believe your own sources that everyone is against them why can't you let us edit that article??Because everytime one try to remove that source and write the truth you are going to undo them.I wonder what kind of person you are.. with so much hate !.and you have been provided with some evidences to show that they have mistaken it but you don't want to accept..and no where I said Tanzania sources have to be believed,what I said she was convicted in Tanzania and many sources here in Tanzania were in court compare to those sources you're using that have translated it wrong and they obviously not in the court By the way you haven't answered my question
Is this [23] RS for information about the said artist, or in general. I can find nothing about who writes for it or its editorial policy.? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to ask about the following source, which was added to Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit as a general reference and removed by User:Chris troutman (Note that I've added some details to the citation):
It's a website published by the Kasetsart University Archives, a department of the Office of the President, Kasetsart University. The site provides profiles of some of the university's distinguished personnel, as part of celebrations of the university's sixtieth anniversary. According to the introduction page, some of the material was taken from the following book:
And some original material was added to make the website. (The subject was a former President of the University Council, in case you're wondering.)
I have tried to explain some of this, and asked why Chris troutman thinks the site is not a reliable source at Talk:Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit#archives.psd.ku.ac.th, but we've so far failed to come to a conclusion. His arguments from the talk page and in edit summaries are:
I don't know if he reads Thai, but I do and can provide further info and/or translations if needed. We'd like some third opinions on this. Thanks in advance. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to know if this news article is reliable to determine notability of the article The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius specifically with the criteria of WP:NBOOKS. Weddle, Eric (April 8, 2013). "Boy genius' celebrity grows with new book, movie deal". USA Today. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:31, 18 February 2018 (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.
Following on the discussion above (permalink), the following is proposed, as the community stance on Fox News as a source, generally. Within this, as always, each specific use to support specific content must be evaluated in light of the content policies.
Fox News is generally as reliable as CNN, NBC, and ABC for mundane facts unrelated to politics, but is deprecated for political subjects. Therefore it should be used with caution regarding politics and its opinions clearly attributed.
-- Jytdog ( talk) 17:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
They aren't quite as close to center as CNN is on the left, but more like MSNBC is to the left. Pew Research Center is good on this. ( Play with this.) They often literally won't mention basic political facts and news stories which are counter to their own GOP POV, and when they are finally forced to do it, it's with very heavy spin.
My wife, who isn't political at all, will sometimes switch back and forth between CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and Fox, just to see how all MSM are discussing stories, but Fox is discussing some minor event of no significance, and often it's a distraction. She points it out.
They refuse to cover stories against their POV, and then only with spin that turns it into actual falsehood and propaganda. Sins of omission have consequences. Good propaganda is often without direct lies, but by omitting certain information the effect is very deceptive.
This means they are literally fact checked by other MSM, which forces them to finally make a correction as the caboose, way behind on the train of facts.
When they have a GOP talking point or POV to push, they are like a bulldog that won't let go. It blinds them so their bias is very obvious to anyone who compares news coverage, and they have occasionally repeated fake news from the extreme right.
The pathway from Russia to Fox News has been described by Paul Wood:
"This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls." Source
Note that Fox picks up a few of the fake news stories, but by that time the MSM is aware not to do it.
This is directly related to this RS policy. It has to be weighted heavily against them.
1. Fox's file at PolitiFact
2. Comparison of MSM at PolitiFact.
3. Snopes
4. Fox least trusted in 2014. Pew Research Center
5. Fox News Pounded In Ratings As Truth Mounts a Surprising Comeback, Newsweek
This RfC is getting ambiguous responses because it raises two separate issues with one yes or no question. We need to solicit editor opinions separately on political and non-political content. From the comments it appears that editors are Opposing this not because they feel Fox is RS for politics but because they feel it is not RS for anything at all. It's a nuisance, but I suggest restarting this with two separate questions. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As this has now been withdrawn why is it still being argued over? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
comment Honestly, as I was trying to suggest before, the reliability of a source (like fox) that is generally reliable should be reviewed case by case. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Stewart suggested that Fox’s tendency to mislabel opinion as news is what differentiates the network from other, more traditional news sources. But that’s the least of it. The more important distinction is the conservative slant and essential inaccuracy of much of Fox’s news reporting itself. Stewart conceded Baier’s premise that because Fox has reporters stationed in Middle Eastern hot spots their reporting on world affairs is above reproach. It is not.
Political bias is no reason to exclude a source of OPINION, but that bias is call for concern when the "news" source which called itself "Fair and Balanced" for so many years (now the pretense is gone) consistently ignores facts it doesn't like, or, when it does mention them, it alters and twists those facts to the point where the result is propaganda. That's not a NEWS channel, but a propaganda channel in the "entertainment" division of Fox Entertainment Group. That was the purpose for its creation by Roger Ailes. He was the media consultant for multiple GOP presidents and the RNC, and wanted an unofficial channel for the GOP. He allied himself with Rupert Murdoch, an enemy of democracy, and created his dream. It's not a normal news channel, but a GOP propaganda network.
We must recognize these differences and deprecate it with a "use with caution for politics" label. This is not a ban. It can still be used for mundane facts. In those cases, it doesn't mix, without mention, its political spin/opinions with the news. It can state such facts perfectly well. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The above changes are challenged by @ Bhaskarbhagawati: and so I would like to solicit opinions on the reliability of the source listed above. The website claims that Kamrupi is not one but a group of dialects. The exact quote is follows:
Several regional dialects are typically recognized. These dialects vary primarily with respect to phonology and morphology. A high degree of mutual intelligibility is enjoyed among the dialects. Banikanta Kakati has divided the Assamese dialects into two major groups. They are:
However, recent studies have shown that there are four dialect groups, listed below from east to west:
- Eastern group spoken in and other districts around Sibsagar district.
- Central group spoken in present Nagaon district and adjoining areas.
- Kamrupi group spoken in undivided Kamrup, Nalbari, Barpeta, Darrang, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon.
- Goalparia group spoken in Goalpara, Dhubri, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon districts
This website and the text itself is quoted/referenced in a conference proceeding&mdhas; Nath et. al. "A Preliminary Study on the VOT Patterns of the Assamese Language and Its Nalbaria Variety", p543. The senior author of this article is a lead researcher in a different institute (Tezpur University). Some of the recent research has been on a number of Kamrupi dialects: Barpetia dialect, Nalbariya dialect, etc. For example, the PhD thesis on Barpetia dialect— [31]—was submitted to the Gauhati University. Some more discussion is listed here: Talk:Kamrupi dialect#Kamrupi dialect -> Kamrupi dialects
I believe it is fairly established that Kamrupi is a group of dialects, and not a single dialect all by itself as it has been accepted by the linguistic community. I seek the help of this noticeboard in establishing the reliability of the source, or failing which the recommendation of any other source. Thanks.
Chaipau ( talk) 07:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to invite some editors who have participated in
Assamese language and
Kamrupi dialect article and talk pages to this discussion: @
SameerKhan:, @
Tuncrypt:, @
Aeusoes1:, kindly contribute to this thread.
Chaipau (
talk) 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I accept aeusoes1 ( talk · contribs)'s comment that the website's information is correct (that the Kamrupi dialect is a group of dialects), but that we need better sourced references. Chaipau ( talk) 08:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(UTC)
Hello in the actual Wikipedia article about Salon newspaper it states in the opening line that Salon is a "News and Opinion website". Salon_(website)
If this particular website is half just opinion - why are Salon articles counted as a reliable source in quite a few Wikipedia articles? That is especially taking into account the very trashy and grotesque language that is obviously acceptable.
Has anyone looked into the opinion versus news dichotomy, in terms of accepting Salon articles as proper encyclopedia references of fact?
Thank you for your time. Maryanne881 ( talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
User T****** wrote that the Toronto Sun is an unreliable citation. I looked in Wikipedia article, Toronto Sun, and it doesn't confirm this. Is the Toronto Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper of Toronto ok to use as a citation in Wikipedia? Vanguard10 ( talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I was looking for sources for the "My Man" (Tamar Braxton song) article, specifically to add information on the song's composition. Would I be able to use the following site ( songkeybpm.com) to cite the key and beats per minute? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG notwithstanding, would anyone care to comment on this: [38] and "news reports are primary sources for historical events". This is in relation to BrowseAloud and now AfD:BrowseAloud (3rd nomination). It's a piece of software that was barely notable in the past and was deleted on its 3rd AfD. As it has recently, since that AfD, become news-worthy for a whole new reason it went through DRV, and now AfD. This AfD seems to hinge on excluding sources like these: [1] and [2] I cannot see anything in our RS policy to support this new "news reports are not RS" approach. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Source: DBase.tube
Article: List of most-subscribed YouTube channels
Content: § By country and territory
The "most-subscribed by country" table is currently based on the lists compiled by VidStatsX, but the website has been inaccessible for about two weeks. If the table is to remain, another reliable source must be found from which relevant, regularly updated statistics can be derived. I believe the best candidate is the website DBase, which provides lists of most-subscribed YouTube channels for around 200 countries and territories (examples of some of the lists that would be used: [39] [40] [41] [42]), but I am struggling to determine if it is reliable. The lists are most likely automatically generated, but does that preclude them from being dependable?. Life of Tau 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
These two sources are being mentioned in the infobox on this article. To me it seems like a case of questionable sourcing for the map link as there's nothing indicating how or why it's notable, what its editorial standards are, etc. From what I can gather, it's crowd-sourced news; twitter reports, blogs, etc. While Aleppo24.com could be used as a source in the article itself, including either of them by name in the infobox seems like giving their estimates undue weight and seems highly unorthodox. Eik Corell ( talk) 08:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Specifically the article [43]-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I found at least 15 articles in Wikipedia that cite the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is well-known for its promotion of pseudoscientific theories. Do most of these references need to be replaced? Jarble ( talk) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The article for Princess Lilian, Duchess of Halland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) makes extensive use of photographs as references. Especially in the Princess Lilian, Duchess of Halland#Honours section. Are these considered reliable sources? There is no mention of where they were taken nor is there any indication of what honour is in each pic. If they are okay a followup question is, since they are bare url's, how can they be formatted to avoid linkrot? Thanks ahead of time for any assistance that you can provide. MarnetteD| Talk 21:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
To my mind, the problem with using pictures as sources is not so much a "reliability" issue as an "OR" issue. And it's not about the medium "image" as such; it's about using sources to back up statements that are not intended as such by the medium's original author. Citing a source on Wikipedia, in a responsible, non-OR way, always means rendering a statement that can be attributed as such, as an intented message, to the original author of the source. If we could prove that the photographer of this picture originally published it with the intention of showing: 'here, she got this order', then it would be okay as a source. Since we can't (and it's highly unlikely they intended any such thing), we are left with a claim of fact that we can't attribute to an author but that we have made up ourselves. We are using the picture not as a source of somebody else's claims, but as evidence for our own claims. That's the very definition of "original research". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
In the current case, all I'm seeing are random, blurry, uncaptioned photos of a person who happens to be wearing a variety of medals on her sash. Like this: what information is someone supposed to tease out of THAT? -- Calton | Talk 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Having a disagreement at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion so want some clarification here. If a reliable source, such as http://www.abc.net.au which a search shows is used in 1,906 Wikipedia articles already, has an article titled Avoiding waste with the Japanese concept of 'mottainai' , does that prove its a concept not just a word? The argument is that they and other sources found aren't experts on "Japanese linguistics", that you need a "university press or peer-reviewed source by a Buddhist specialist", not a "popular news websites" to state something. Dream Focus 12:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTBLOG: questions that don't affect article content do not need to be answered on this noticeboard. Also, please stop commenting on named or unnamed other editors. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Francis Schonken. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is Legacy.com generally considered to be a RS? Should it be treated as a primary source if it is? I checked the RSN archives, but only found 3 hits none of which were conclusive. I also checked WP:EL/P, but found nothing there. Generally, official obituaries written by staff of major newspapers, etc. tend to be considered OK as RS, but ones written/submitted by family members seem to be treated as WP:UGC or WP:SPS.
The reason I'm asking is because I would like to know if
this can be considered a reliable source for
David Steiner, in particular stuff about his surviving family, place of internment, etc. The obit says at the bottom "Published in a Chicago Tribune Media Group Publication from Dec. 29 to Dec. 30, 2016" which might be referring to
this; owever, that Tribune page states that the obit is "courtesy of Chicago Jewish Funerals" which looks like to be
this. No idea who wrote the obit, but I think these are often directly written by a surving family member or funeral service employees based upon information provided by family members.Can this be used as a reliable source and if so are their any restrictions placed upon it? Would it be best to cite the original website it appeared on and then use the Patch as the |via=
parameter in
Template:Cite web? --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There are at least 49 articles in Wikipedia that cite Zero Hedge, which are mostly written by anonymous contributors using the pseudonym Tyler Durden. Would this make it an unreliable source for most purposes? Jarble ( talk) 05:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
English-language financial blogwould generally disqualify it; so would
classified as "alt-right", anti-establishment, conspiratorialGalobtter ( pingó mió) 05:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
"Many individual investors might also be unfamiliar with Zero Hedge, the blog associated with Mr. Ivandjiiski. Zero Hedge has emerged as a favorite daily read among Wall Street's literati. According to Quantcast, a digitical audience-measurement and advertising company, Zero Hedge recently attracted about 3.4 million monthly unique visitors. The website has built up an impressive amount of monthly traffic for a publication with the mystique of an underground operation. More mainstream blogging websites, such as TheStreet and Seeking Alpha, each attract 8–9 million monthly unique visitors, according to their advertising web pages. Zero Hedge and its principle contributor with the mysterious pseudonym are not exactly newcomers to the world of financial blogging. In 2009, a New York Magazine article, entitled "The Dow Zero Insurgency", shed light on Zero Hedge's little-known principal in a feature article on the burgeoning world of financial blooding... Zero Hedge's coverage of [a Goldman Sachs] story became emblematic of its unique brand of investigative journalism — one laced with a deeply cynical distrust of Wall Street... Zero Hedge is an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants about the failings of U.S. political and economic institutions ad policies... Its writers dart back and forth between conventional news coverage and opinion-laden editorials. Readers value the blog's frequent, topical updates and strong point of view. Followers of Zero Hedge also praise the author's cerebral brand of cynicism and determination to challenge mainstream views about business, finance, and politics... Many financial advisors and stock investors have bookmarked it (and others like it) and scan it for interesting headlines several times a day... etc."
"Perhaps the most famous blog on markets in general is Zero Hedge, a site with a cult following. Zero Hedge dwarfs all other financial market blogs. Started in 2009, the blog is written in an activist style and is highly critical of markets. It has managed to remain shrouded in mystery. It's still not entirely clear who started it and it's believed to be edited by several people..."
This site's unsentimental worldview is right in its header: "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." Its anonymous writers post articles under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"... about risks and shady developments in financial markets, news that impacts economies, and politics. It also runs guest posts by named contributors. Zero Hedge says its mission is "to widen the scope of financial, economic, and political information available to the professional investing public" and "to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become." It uses anonymity as "a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Whenever you need a little raw reality, swing by Zero Hedge."
The National Rifle Association has published a number of statements related to the organization's views on certain topics as well as direct responses to criticisms in the media. Are these statements, when attributed to the NRA reliable sources for the NRA's views on a subject.
In a related question, what determines the WP:WEIGHT that should be given to these views? One suggestion is the weight given to the NRA's statements is based on the number of independent sources that report it. An alternative view is weight is based on the topic. A number of topics related to the NRA have clear consensus weight for inclusion (criticism of the NRA for objecting to universal background checks for example). As the subject of the article is it reasonable to assume the NRA's stated position on the topic (assuming they have one) has sufficient weight for inclusion?
Here are two recent discussion topics related to this question [ [51]], [ [52]] Springee ( talk) 01:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
If John Q. Pennyfeather, a notable expert on x, publicly states, "I oppose x," and an article concerning x duly inserts and cites Pennyfeather's direct quote on this, would some secondary commentater be required to "interpret" Pennyfeather's quote before it could be inserted and cited in Wikipedia? If so, why? It seems to me that the concept of "weight" is intended to apply only to "points about which uncertainty still exists," and really has little bearing on points about which we have no reason to doubt their veracity, such as a direct quote reported by a reputable, reliable, and citeable source. One passer by ( talk) 05:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, "weight" has to do with uncertain or unresolved points, where a point of information has not yet been generally "settled," and questions of article neutrality (NPOV) start to come into play. If we wrote an article about the fact that the sky is blue, we wouldn't have to call in secondary sources to support that fact, as it's already a commonly accepted fact (I'm only talking about the most commonly agreed upon color of a cloudless sky here, so please don't nit pick on possible exceptions.) If however we write an article about a sometimes volitile and unresolved topic, such as gun legislation, now parts of such an article will be beyond reasonable question, such as the officially stated positions of the various parties, and for these there is no need to pull out secondary sources to verify that these are their officially stated positions (so long as we accurately describe them as just that).
Other parts of such an article will have to be "proportionately weighted" to represent the "majority scholarly weight," where there is such a thing, and in sections where nobody can say for certain what the "majority scholarly weight" is, both sides would simply have to be listed without "weighting" either way (true neutrality). The concept of "majority scholarly weight," is a very nebulous thing, but that is one of the few places that I know of where secondary sources are necessarily required.
In a case where a party's officially stated position may seem to conflict with the party's actual behavior, still their officially stated position needs no secondary sources, because their officially stated position is not a point of general uncertainty. Granted, if that party's actions may appear to notably conflict with their official position, and the apparent conflict between word and deed might require "interpretation," then secondary sources may be required to make such interpretations, but still, only the "interpretation" of the meaning of the disharmony between word and deed would require secondary sources (if such an interpretation might not be entirely obvious to a typical reader), yet their "officially stated position" itself would remain as a point of reasonable certainty, thus not requiring secondary sources to report on merely the official position. Here again, the concept of "weight" then becomes applicable, because in such cases where word and deed may not agree, we are now probably dealing again with uncertainty and unresolved points of information. One passer by ( talk) 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Their book Tourism In India: An Overview (2 Vols.), Volume 1 By Rabindra Seth is the particular one under consideration. Can it be used to source challenges to tourism in India? Elektricity ( talk) 06:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)#Lead Salon is, well, Salon and has been often discussed here. As for Michael Wolff, should this paragraph be included and cited in the lead: In Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Miller was described as a "a fifty-five-year-old trapped in a thirty-two-year-old's body"; Wolff noted that "other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller's views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was militantly unread. He was supposed to be a communications specialist but he antagonized almost everyone." Wolff, Michael (2018). Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Henry Holt and Co. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-1250158062.
Wolff and his book have been described as: "dubiously sourced" Garber, Megan. "The Smearing of Nikki Haley". The Atlantic. "getting eviscerated over its accuracy — and it's not the first time" http://www.businessinsider.com/accuracy-of-michael-wolffs-new-trump-book-in-question-2018-1 "Wolff is not merely out of his depth—he frequently seems confused by even basic matters of political ideology—" www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/.../fire_and_fury_by_michael_wolff_reviewed.html "riddled with errors and rumors" https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tapper-wolffs-book-should-be-met-with-skepticism-riddled-with-errors-and-rumors/ etc, etc. NPalgan2 ( talk) 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the Jerusalem Post, Miller is a "self described nationalist." Sounds pretty far-right to me. Perhaps changing the lead sentence to reflect that he is a "self described nationalist," and using the JPost as a cite for this would be the most "to the point" for the lead. One passer by ( talk) 22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we can find more that says he is right like this telegraph piece that says he embrace "alt right" ideas at Uni. Or another NY times piece that goes into all his right leaning policies and ideals. Not sure reliablity of Newsweek as don't follow many overseas papers but here they talk about his right-wing politics too. NZFC (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The more general debate has gone nowhere over the past 6 months. In the US, the term "far-right" can, in different contexts, refer to somebody particularly enthusiastic about mainstream conservatism, a person who is part of the Tea Party movement/ alt-right, or a straight-up neo-Nazi. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't create words here, but using existing terms that better distinguish between these terms would be ideal. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This request seems moot, since, as pointed out above, we have many better sources describing him as far-right (including the New York Times and Business Insider, both impeccable sources.) If your objection is to the specific sources you cited, just rely on the others for that particular statement instead. If your objection is that we should never call someone far-right unless they explicitly identify that way themselves, regardless of what the sources say (and regardless of their quality or reliability), then your issue isn't a WP:RS issue and should be taken to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN rather than here. Personally, I would say that Salon passes WP:RS - keep WP:BIASED in mind; a source is only judged as reliable or unreliable based on their accuracy and reputation, not their point of view. But either way, that's irrelevant when it's only one of many sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO, you keep on saying that there's "overwhelming weight" of a "dozen other" RSs labelling Miller as far-right or some comparable label. Well, add them. Is the 'Edit source' button on Stephen Miller broken or something? NPalgan2 ( talk) 04:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a side discussion... but it does relate. We have had a lot of discussions recently about people described as being “far right” by various sources... but do these sources ever describe anyone as being less than “far” right? Is anyone ever described as being “near” right or “center” right ... or perhaps a “mainstream” right? (Examples please). Blueboar ( talk) 05:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This conversation about the best "political descriptor" to use to best describe Steve Miller's political "leanings" has gotten me to wondering if the descriptor: "far-right" is used more in self description, or by left-leaning folks attempting to pigeonhole some of their political opponents on the right? Do any "right-leaning" folks use the term "far-right" to describe themselves? Perhaps the lead would be most neutral and accurate if it stated something like: "Miller describes himself as a nationalist, and has been described by some as far-right." One passer by ( talk) 12:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Can a advertisement found in an old newspaper be used as a source to place an individual in a certain place. For example if Ringling Bros. Circus had an advertisement for an upcoming event in the St Louis Post - Dispatch newspaper in 1956, can I accurately state "Ringling Bros. visited St Louis in 1956" and use the advertisement as my source? Idealee ( talk) 14:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The archive is strong enough to establish that the ad was placed. I would note that lists of venues likely are available somewhere. As to "an individual" - even an official list of venues can not establish an individual's actual location on a given day. Collect ( talk) 15:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I restored part of someone's edit, but the same guy then removed it again. [62] Dream Focus 16:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Article: Shreya Ghoshal
Full reference URL: http://m.deccanherald.com/?name=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/661487/my-whole-focus-always-music.html
Content: She has sung in 14 languages. Zafar24 Talk 00:34, 2 March 2018 (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 235 | Archive 236 | Archive 237 | Archive 238 | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | → | Archive 245 |
An entry for Nathaniel Lubell was added as a notable resident in the article for Fort Lee, New Jersey. This source at Sports Reference lists his place of death as Fort Lee, but has no indication that he resided there. This source published in The New York Times explicitly states that "Lubell--Nathaniel, 90 of Fort Lee, NJ died in his home on Sat., Sept. 17th." The paid death notice had been used as a source in his article and I used that same source in the Fort Lee article to support the claim that he was a resident.
Would this source be permissible per WP:SELFPUB as a reliable source solely for this purpose? Alansohn ( talk) 16:42, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
http://www.eliteprospects.com for hockey related articles? Thoughts appreciated. Gabriel syme ( talk) 21:37, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
I just spent some time stripping out reddit, amazon.com and youtube sources from the Laura Bailey (voice actress) article. I now notice dozens of "credit references" which are pointers to the page in a video where her name appears in the credits. let's say, very roughly, references 69-91. I'll append two examples here:
Are these RS? Should I be asking on the OR noticeboard instead?
References
-- 104.163.148.25 ( talk) 03:16, 8 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Mankind Quarterly ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) I wanted to ask whether articles published in the pseudoscientific racist journal Mankind Quarterly is ever reliable, and if so, what content it can be considered reliable to support. I just removed information sourced to an article published in this journal from White Latin Americans, and was wondering if other editors supported this removal and/or removal of similar content from other articles in which this journal is cited (e.g. Memetics, ref. 27). Every morning (there's a halo...) 21:45, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
More recently, Axact employees have impersonated Emirati government officials in an effort to extort "legalisation fees" from unsuspecting fake degree and diploma holders in that country.( diff)
I'm not so much interested in the particular content as I am seeking feedback about the reliability of this Emirati weekly print newspaper, XPRESS. Here is their "about" page. They don't post a masthead. Their parent organization appears to be Gulf News, which publishes a daily. This is the only bio I could find of Gulf News' editor-in-chief, no apparent professional journalism experience. I could find no evidence that either of these outlets are cited approvingly by other reliable sources. Perhaps someone proficient in Arabic could investigate this further? (I am not watching this page, so please ping me if you want my attention.) -- Dr. Fleischman ( talk) 18:21, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Does Investopedia.com meet RS? Should all investopedia links [2] [3] be deleted, en masse, without further discussion?
In particular, there is a new SPA, TaxAct2018 ( talk · contribs) engaged in doing just that. Andy Dingley ( talk) 20:09, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
This source was cited in the article, but was removed again, because someone decided it was not reliable, though, the comment can be directly traced to the expert himself.
Dr. David Stifter of Maynooth University, himself, posted a response to a Lenore Fischer back in 2011 on the Old Irish L archive. https://listserv.heanet.ie/cgi-bin/wa?A2=old-irish-l;DyXx1Q;20110806191509%2B0100
Here is Dr. Stifter's page at the Maynooth website: https://www.maynoothuniversity.ie/people/david-stifter
This is the part in question below. Dr. Stifter's response is the second paragraph starting with "Joe's scepticism stems..."
Subject: Re: Tartessian 2
From: "Dr. David Stifter" <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Scholars and students of Old Irish <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Sat, 6 Aug 2011 19:15:09 +0100
Content-Type: text/plain
Parts/Attachments: text/plain (87 lines)
On 6 Aug 2011 at 17:45, lenore fischer wrote:
>*1. Koch, John (Aberystwyth) ‘A Celtic Verbal Complex in Tartessian?’*
>
>Handout has very detailed translations of the inscriptions: I can scan and
>send this to anyone who’s interested. In the questions afterwards Joseph
>Eska remarked that he still wasn’t convinced that Tartessian is even
>Indo-European. Pretty withering, really.
Joe's scepticism stems partly from the apparent sound inventory of those texts, which suggest to him the possibility of dealing with a language that could be related to Iberian and Basque. Given that acc. to Koch's handout the texts seem to be written in scriptua continua, determining words is of course a very tricky undertaking, and one that already predetermines your results of the reading. Because of some recurrent sequences which do on the surface look very much Indo- European, I do not share Joe's complete scepticism, but I can't see anything particularly Celtic at all. A lot of the features that John Koch needs to identify the text as Celtic are very specifically medieval Irish, and require a whole lot of very special developments, which I a priori wouldn't expect to see so early at that remote place. A.Tamar Chabadi ( talk) 10:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
Self-published material may sometimes be acceptable when its author is an established expert whose work in the relevant field has been published by reliable third-party publications. Such material, although written by an established author, likely lacks the fact checking that publishers provide. Avoid using them to source extraordinary claims. Self-published information should never be used as a third-party source about another living person, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer.
Dr. David Stifter certainly meets and surpasses that criteria. He has directed projects concerning Celtic and Old and Middle Irish. He authored several papers and book chapters on Irish and Celtic linguistic developments. He is well more than qualified to comment on John Koch's Celtic language work. He is not being used to source an extraordinary claim. He, himself, is not making an extraordinary claim. He is speaking from his own considerable expertise and post-doctorate education on a matter of Celtic and Irish linguistics. See, his personal page (link provided in an earlier post) for his impressive resume in Celtic and Old and Middle Irish linguistics. Again, he meets and surpasses the criteria set forward in the Exceptions section of WP:USERGENERATED. A.Tamar Chabadi ( talk) 00:04, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
"On November 28, 2015, the couple announced their child Chanel had been born, without specifying the exact date. [1] [2]"
Is this reliably sourced?
Neither source states they did not announce the date. Actually, the instagram post cited refers to another account created earlier which plainly gives the date. babychanelnicole [4]
IMO, there is no reason to assume they did not give the date and there is no basis to assign meaning to the assumption in a BLP.
From where I'm sitting, the birth date is not in any way controversial and we should simply state when the baby was born without claiming they did not say something.
References
I pushed Chanel out in 3 tries! This was taken not 5 minutes after delivery.
- SummerPhD v2.0 14:07, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
(edit conflict) The sentence is not "implying" anything. You can infer whatever you like, but the statement as written is objectively factual. Secondly, you say they "clearly" announced a birth date. Where? If you find that, then this entire discussion is moot. I genuinely would love to see that cite so this can all end.
Where is Us Weekly and the other outlets getting their information, if the parents or their reps aren't giving it? "Sources claim" ... "Insiders say" ... "We're confirming (but not saying how)." Those are the anonymous claims from shadowy, unidentified "sources". It's well-established WP:BLP requires a higher standard than "anonymous sources say". -- Tenebrae ( talk) 23:14, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to solicit some feedback about this book, The Honest Drug Book, which is used as a reference on numerous recreational drug topics (mostly drug and plant articles, as far as I can tell). I don't have access to the book itself, but can only judge it by what I can find others' saying about it. Amazon.com ( https://www.amazon.com/Honest-Drug-Book-Chemical-Botanical/dp/0995593604) describes the author merely as an "explorer", not noting any relevant education or scientific expertise (pharmacology, botany, etc.) Based on that page, the book's contents appear to be mainly subjective experiences. The description of it presenting "hidden truths" also raises my concern about possible WP:FRINGE content. My first impression is that it definitely shouldn't be used for any type of medical-related claims. See for example Celastrus paniculatus, where the book is used as a reference for claims that it is a "stimulant" and of "psychoactivity". However, would it be an acceptable source about more objective facts, such as perhaps the way certain drugs/plants are used recreationally, though? Deli nk ( talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
-
I ADDED ONE OF THOSE REFERENCES
I added one of those references, only to find today that it was removed. I thus find myself here.
I have a copy of the book itself, and can refute most of which is stated above. I would not have edited the page if these were legitimate comments.
It does describe subjective experiences, but these are clearly marked as such. The main thrust of the content is peer confirmed and academically researched information, which again is clearly marked. Nor are the "claims" medical in nature, which seems to be a strange interpretation of recorded historical and scientific data, particularly when used to justify wholescale removal of every reference.
Regarding the publisher and the author I have just performed some checks. I registered for and searched the ISBN at Nielsen. According to this MxZero does seem to be a credible third party publisher or an arm of one. The records there include data on both the book and the publisher. An extract for example -
For the author, I would guess that he retains privacy for the same reasons that I do, specifically, social attitudes to those who take or discuss drugs.
In these circumstances, how would one become a "noted authority"? For example, regarding issues of certain aspects of psychoactivity, and relative psychoactivity, surely a factor in the status of authority would be the personal use of the substance or compound itself. Given this, I suggest that finding a "noted authority" who has thus tested these psychoactive materials in a comparative, relative and scientific sense (as much as is possible) and who's "authority" equals or exceeds that of the author would be virtually impossible. This is why I purchased the book in the first place.
I feel subject context is of particular importance in certain fields, drugs being one of them, and that this has not been taken into account regarding the removal of my reference, and presumably the others.
I am saddened to see this fall, largely because the information is valuable and useful, and certainly worthy of inclusion in any objective and informative platform. I believe that my edit was perfectly valid.
I recognise that my post here will likely be futile, and may not be welcomed, but seeing factual harm reduction and scientific based data blocked from public scrutiny across the mainstream media, which seems to include Wikipedia, is frustrating. This platform should be a conduit for reliable data and not dependent upon the whims and prejudices of society.
I'd like to solicit some feedback about this book, The Honest Drug Book, which is used as a reference on numerous recreational drug topics (mostly drug and plant articles, as far as I can tell). I don't have access to the book itself, but can only judge it by what I can find others' saying about it. Amazon.com ( https://www.amazon.com/Honest-Drug-Book-Chemical-Botanical/dp/0995593604) describes the author merely as an "explorer", not noting any relevant education or scientific expertise (pharmacology, botany, etc.) Based on that page, the book's contents appear to be mainly subjective experiences. The description of it presenting "hidden truths" also raises my concern about possible WP:FRINGE content. My first impression is that it definitely shouldn't be used for any type of medical-related claims. See for example Celastrus paniculatus, where the book is used as a reference for claims that it is a "stimulant" and of "psychoactivity". However, would it be an acceptable source about more objective facts, such as perhaps the way certain drugs/plants are used recreationally, though? Deli nk ( talk) 19:57, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
-
I ADDED ONE OF THOSE REFERENCES
I added one of those references, only to find today that it was removed. I thus find myself here.
I have a copy of the book itself, and can refute most of which is stated above. I would not have edited the page if these were legitimate comments.
It does describe subjective experiences, but these are clearly marked as such. The main thrust of the content is peer confirmed and academically researched information, which again is clearly marked. Nor are the "claims" medical in nature, which seems to be a strange interpretation of recorded historical and scientific data, particularly when used to justify wholescale removal of every reference.
Regarding the publisher and the author I have just performed some checks. I registered for and searched the ISBN at Nielsen. According to this MxZero does seem to be a credible third party publisher or an arm of one. The records there include data on both the book and the publisher. An extract for example -
For the author, I would guess that he retains privacy for the same reasons that I do, specifically, social attitudes to those who take or discuss drugs.
In these circumstances, how would one become a "noted authority"? For example, regarding issues of certain aspects of psychoactivity, and relative psychoactivity, surely a factor in the status of authority would be the personal use of the substance or compound itself. Given this, I suggest that finding a "noted authority" who has thus tested these psychoactive materials in a comparative, relative and scientific sense (as much as is possible) and who's "authority" equals or exceeds that of the author would be virtually impossible. This is why I purchased the book in the first place.
I feel subject context is of particular importance in certain fields, drugs being one of them, and that this has not been taken into account regarding the removal of my reference, and presumably the others.
I am saddened to see this fall, largely because the information is valuable and useful, and certainly worthy of inclusion in any objective and informative platform. I believe that my edit was perfectly valid. I also suspect that there is an irony here in that had I added the information without a reference it would most probably have been left in place.
I recognise that my post here will likely be futile, and may not be welcomed, but seeing factual harm reduction and scientific based data blocked from public scrutiny across the mainstream media, which seems to include Wikipedia, is frustrating. This platform should be a conduit for reliable data and not dependent upon the whims and prejudices of society.
It is extremely disappointing that in a field in which Wikipedia presents sometimes dangerous misinformation, in fact potentially fatal misinformation, efforts to address this are so abuptly and irrationally curtailed. I am not sure whether there is an escalation procedure for this sort of issue, but if there is, I suggest that it is invoked.
Hi! Are we not allowed to use a reliable news outlet as a source if their report references a tabloid?
I tried to post sexual assault allegations against Sylvester Stallone on his page. I used BBC News as my source ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-42023885), however another user removed it for being unreliable because the article mentions that the police report was published by the Daily Mail.
And if so, would I also not be allowed to use a reliable source that references TMZ? (For example, this: https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/sylvester-stallone-rape-allegation_us_5a3ce122e4b025f99e165ce4) Because the WP:PUS says that TMZ "has received criticism for errors in breaking news and has a reputation for gossip, but it is increasingly seen as credible by other news agencies" and so I wasn't sure if that was considered unreliable or not.
Thank you. Abbyjjjj96 ( talk) 23:31, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
I recently (unsuccessfully) nominated an article for deletion. It was my first nomination, the 4th for the article. The discussion brought up many claims of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, but I was most surprised by the claims about sources. At the time I reviewed them, all of the sources were either blogs, tabloids/weekly tabloids, or “lifestyle” websites. The strongest sources were HuffPost, FHM, Cosmopolitan, and Maxim, but the articles were humorous, opinion pieces, summaries of social media posts, or all of the above. The argument that carried the day (I think) was that for esoteric topics one was allowed / encouraged to use such sources (the topic is esoteric because it’s a fake/satirical holiday, Steak and Blowjob Day, see the talk page for details). My search of the reliable sources archives turned up little or no discussion, so I'm hoping for some guidance. Dictioneer ( talk) 03:58, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
This has been discussed twice before with no real decision being made as to its reliability. Per http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Special:ListGroupRights it is a mediawiki powered site whose registered edits can edit pages. Pages such as http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Soil_Resources_Development_Institute have absolutely no references on them. By clicking on "Random page" a few times this seems to be a common theme. Now on the other hand, there is http://en.banglapedia.org/index.php?title=Online_Edition which claims that the material is edited by professors and there is some oversight to it and there is a print version under the same name. There is no link that I can find between the print version and this website. The fact that this is a mediawiki powered site with a user group that can edit pages seems to indicate that this is not a reliable source. But it continues to be used on 50 pages. -- Majora ( talk) 23:33, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
There's a good reason it is cited in over 2,800 articlesis not a valid argument. We've had plenty of works cited in those sort of volumes that have nonetheless been determined to be unreliable. onefivenine.com is a recent example, as are wikimapia and Google maps, and many British Raj era authors. Dare I add the Daily Mail? For what it is worth, I've long held doubts about Banglapedia, too. - Sitush ( talk) 10:53, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
Is this [18] open access journal RS? Thanks. -- Alanscottwalker ( talk) 14:18, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Elizabeth Michael is an actress who has been convicted of manslaughter for the death of her boyfriend, actor Steven Kanumba. I've been debating with several users over the last few weeks over an assertion I added to the article that Michael admitted during her testimony in court that she did push him during an argument. (Two of them tried to remove any mention of the conviction from the article altogether! So I didn't grant them much credence, as they were clearly working to an outrageous extreme to keep negative material out of the article. My current correspondent hasn't done that.)
I sourced this claim to two apparently reliable sources. Those who've taken issue with this are insisting that these sources aren't reliable. I don't think any of them has provided alternative sources that explicitly say Michael didn't admit, during her testimony, to pushing Kanumba, only sources that don't mention her saying anything about it at all. (For what it's worth, in her statement at the time of her arrest several years before the trial, it does appear that she denied having pushed him.)
It may be that three different people just don't want to believe what these two sources wrote, or it may be that the sources are generally known to be unreliable, or it may be that they happen to be wrong in this case. I don't know, but I thought I'd present the situation for consideration here to get more opinions.
See my latest discussion about this on my talk page, User talk:Largoplazo#Wrong source. Largoplazo ( talk) 15:27, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
I see my inquiry has gotten no traction. In case it helps, the sources attesting her admission to having pushed him are:
— Largoplazo ( talk) 23:49, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
Do you understand swahili?!! Why do they have to say that"Michael admitted to having pushing Kanumba" and Michael herself didn't admit in the court ,they have reported what Michael said in the court and not what they think or guess as the source you use which are outside Tanzania that were definitely not in the court .I'll repeat this the source you use show she won ZIFF award for Foolish Age which is not true she won for Woman of Principles.It's clear they know nothing about Michael Candy78 ( talk)
If you don't want to believe them,and you want to believe your own sources that everyone is against them why can't you let us edit that article??Because everytime one try to remove that source and write the truth you are going to undo them.I wonder what kind of person you are.. with so much hate !.and you have been provided with some evidences to show that they have mistaken it but you don't want to accept..and no where I said Tanzania sources have to be believed,what I said she was convicted in Tanzania and many sources here in Tanzania were in court compare to those sources you're using that have translated it wrong and they obviously not in the court By the way you haven't answered my question
Is this [23] RS for information about the said artist, or in general. I can find nothing about who writes for it or its editorial policy.? Slatersteven ( talk) 16:32, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
Hi. I'd like to ask about the following source, which was added to Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit as a general reference and removed by User:Chris troutman (Note that I've added some details to the citation):
It's a website published by the Kasetsart University Archives, a department of the Office of the President, Kasetsart University. The site provides profiles of some of the university's distinguished personnel, as part of celebrations of the university's sixtieth anniversary. According to the introduction page, some of the material was taken from the following book:
And some original material was added to make the website. (The subject was a former President of the University Council, in case you're wondering.)
I have tried to explain some of this, and asked why Chris troutman thinks the site is not a reliable source at Talk:Pao Pienlert Boripanyutakit#archives.psd.ku.ac.th, but we've so far failed to come to a conclusion. His arguments from the talk page and in edit summaries are:
I don't know if he reads Thai, but I do and can provide further info and/or translations if needed. We'd like some third opinions on this. Thanks in advance. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 15:54, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
I'd like to know if this news article is reliable to determine notability of the article The Spark: A Mother's Story of Nurturing Genius specifically with the criteria of WP:NBOOKS. Weddle, Eric (April 8, 2013). "Boy genius' celebrity grows with new book, movie deal". USA Today. -- Prisencolin ( talk) 00:31, 18 February 2018 (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.
Following on the discussion above (permalink), the following is proposed, as the community stance on Fox News as a source, generally. Within this, as always, each specific use to support specific content must be evaluated in light of the content policies.
Fox News is generally as reliable as CNN, NBC, and ABC for mundane facts unrelated to politics, but is deprecated for political subjects. Therefore it should be used with caution regarding politics and its opinions clearly attributed.
-- Jytdog ( talk) 17:38, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
They aren't quite as close to center as CNN is on the left, but more like MSNBC is to the left. Pew Research Center is good on this. ( Play with this.) They often literally won't mention basic political facts and news stories which are counter to their own GOP POV, and when they are finally forced to do it, it's with very heavy spin.
My wife, who isn't political at all, will sometimes switch back and forth between CNN, ABC, MSNBC, and Fox, just to see how all MSM are discussing stories, but Fox is discussing some minor event of no significance, and often it's a distraction. She points it out.
They refuse to cover stories against their POV, and then only with spin that turns it into actual falsehood and propaganda. Sins of omission have consequences. Good propaganda is often without direct lies, but by omitting certain information the effect is very deceptive.
This means they are literally fact checked by other MSM, which forces them to finally make a correction as the caboose, way behind on the train of facts.
When they have a GOP talking point or POV to push, they are like a bulldog that won't let go. It blinds them so their bias is very obvious to anyone who compares news coverage, and they have occasionally repeated fake news from the extreme right.
The pathway from Russia to Fox News has been described by Paul Wood:
"This is a three-headed operation," said one former official, setting out the case, based on the intelligence: Firstly, hackers steal damaging emails from senior Democrats. Secondly, the stories based on this hacked information appear on Twitter and Facebook, posted by thousands of automated "bots", then on Russia's English-language outlets, RT and Sputnik, then right-wing US "news" sites such as Infowars and Breitbart, then Fox and the mainstream media. Thirdly, Russia downloads the online voter rolls." Source
Note that Fox picks up a few of the fake news stories, but by that time the MSM is aware not to do it.
This is directly related to this RS policy. It has to be weighted heavily against them.
1. Fox's file at PolitiFact
2. Comparison of MSM at PolitiFact.
3. Snopes
4. Fox least trusted in 2014. Pew Research Center
5. Fox News Pounded In Ratings As Truth Mounts a Surprising Comeback, Newsweek
This RfC is getting ambiguous responses because it raises two separate issues with one yes or no question. We need to solicit editor opinions separately on political and non-political content. From the comments it appears that editors are Opposing this not because they feel Fox is RS for politics but because they feel it is not RS for anything at all. It's a nuisance, but I suggest restarting this with two separate questions. SPECIFICO talk 22:57, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
As this has now been withdrawn why is it still being argued over? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:43, 12 February 2018 (UTC)
comment Honestly, as I was trying to suggest before, the reliability of a source (like fox) that is generally reliable should be reviewed case by case. -Serialjoepsycho- ( talk) 04:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
Stewart suggested that Fox’s tendency to mislabel opinion as news is what differentiates the network from other, more traditional news sources. But that’s the least of it. The more important distinction is the conservative slant and essential inaccuracy of much of Fox’s news reporting itself. Stewart conceded Baier’s premise that because Fox has reporters stationed in Middle Eastern hot spots their reporting on world affairs is above reproach. It is not.
Political bias is no reason to exclude a source of OPINION, but that bias is call for concern when the "news" source which called itself "Fair and Balanced" for so many years (now the pretense is gone) consistently ignores facts it doesn't like, or, when it does mention them, it alters and twists those facts to the point where the result is propaganda. That's not a NEWS channel, but a propaganda channel in the "entertainment" division of Fox Entertainment Group. That was the purpose for its creation by Roger Ailes. He was the media consultant for multiple GOP presidents and the RNC, and wanted an unofficial channel for the GOP. He allied himself with Rupert Murdoch, an enemy of democracy, and created his dream. It's not a normal news channel, but a GOP propaganda network.
We must recognize these differences and deprecate it with a "use with caution for politics" label. This is not a ban. It can still be used for mundane facts. In those cases, it doesn't mix, without mention, its political spin/opinions with the news. It can state such facts perfectly well. -- BullRangifer ( talk) PingMe 15:52, 19 February 2018 (UTC)
The above changes are challenged by @ Bhaskarbhagawati: and so I would like to solicit opinions on the reliability of the source listed above. The website claims that Kamrupi is not one but a group of dialects. The exact quote is follows:
Several regional dialects are typically recognized. These dialects vary primarily with respect to phonology and morphology. A high degree of mutual intelligibility is enjoyed among the dialects. Banikanta Kakati has divided the Assamese dialects into two major groups. They are:
However, recent studies have shown that there are four dialect groups, listed below from east to west:
- Eastern group spoken in and other districts around Sibsagar district.
- Central group spoken in present Nagaon district and adjoining areas.
- Kamrupi group spoken in undivided Kamrup, Nalbari, Barpeta, Darrang, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon.
- Goalparia group spoken in Goalpara, Dhubri, Kokrajhar and Bongaigaon districts
This website and the text itself is quoted/referenced in a conference proceeding&mdhas; Nath et. al. "A Preliminary Study on the VOT Patterns of the Assamese Language and Its Nalbaria Variety", p543. The senior author of this article is a lead researcher in a different institute (Tezpur University). Some of the recent research has been on a number of Kamrupi dialects: Barpetia dialect, Nalbariya dialect, etc. For example, the PhD thesis on Barpetia dialect— [31]—was submitted to the Gauhati University. Some more discussion is listed here: Talk:Kamrupi dialect#Kamrupi dialect -> Kamrupi dialects
I believe it is fairly established that Kamrupi is a group of dialects, and not a single dialect all by itself as it has been accepted by the linguistic community. I seek the help of this noticeboard in establishing the reliability of the source, or failing which the recommendation of any other source. Thanks.
Chaipau ( talk) 07:12, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
I would like to invite some editors who have participated in
Assamese language and
Kamrupi dialect article and talk pages to this discussion: @
SameerKhan:, @
Tuncrypt:, @
Aeusoes1:, kindly contribute to this thread.
Chaipau (
talk) 19:33, 7 February 2018 (UTC)
Thank you for your comments. I accept aeusoes1 ( talk · contribs)'s comment that the website's information is correct (that the Kamrupi dialect is a group of dialects), but that we need better sourced references. Chaipau ( talk) 08:17, 13 February 2018 (UTC)
(UTC)
Hello in the actual Wikipedia article about Salon newspaper it states in the opening line that Salon is a "News and Opinion website". Salon_(website)
If this particular website is half just opinion - why are Salon articles counted as a reliable source in quite a few Wikipedia articles? That is especially taking into account the very trashy and grotesque language that is obviously acceptable.
Has anyone looked into the opinion versus news dichotomy, in terms of accepting Salon articles as proper encyclopedia references of fact?
Thank you for your time. Maryanne881 ( talk) 22:05, 14 February 2018 (UTC)
User T****** wrote that the Toronto Sun is an unreliable citation. I looked in Wikipedia article, Toronto Sun, and it doesn't confirm this. Is the Toronto Sun, which appears to be a major newspaper of Toronto ok to use as a citation in Wikipedia? Vanguard10 ( talk) 22:45, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone! I was looking for sources for the "My Man" (Tamar Braxton song) article, specifically to add information on the song's composition. Would I be able to use the following site ( songkeybpm.com) to cite the key and beats per minute? Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NEWSORG notwithstanding, would anyone care to comment on this: [38] and "news reports are primary sources for historical events". This is in relation to BrowseAloud and now AfD:BrowseAloud (3rd nomination). It's a piece of software that was barely notable in the past and was deleted on its 3rd AfD. As it has recently, since that AfD, become news-worthy for a whole new reason it went through DRV, and now AfD. This AfD seems to hinge on excluding sources like these: [1] and [2] I cannot see anything in our RS policy to support this new "news reports are not RS" approach. Andy Dingley ( talk) 00:44, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
References
Source: DBase.tube
Article: List of most-subscribed YouTube channels
Content: § By country and territory
The "most-subscribed by country" table is currently based on the lists compiled by VidStatsX, but the website has been inaccessible for about two weeks. If the table is to remain, another reliable source must be found from which relevant, regularly updated statistics can be derived. I believe the best candidate is the website DBase, which provides lists of most-subscribed YouTube channels for around 200 countries and territories (examples of some of the lists that would be used: [39] [40] [41] [42]), but I am struggling to determine if it is reliable. The lists are most likely automatically generated, but does that preclude them from being dependable?. Life of Tau 07:10, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
These two sources are being mentioned in the infobox on this article. To me it seems like a case of questionable sourcing for the map link as there's nothing indicating how or why it's notable, what its editorial standards are, etc. From what I can gather, it's crowd-sourced news; twitter reports, blogs, etc. While Aleppo24.com could be used as a source in the article itself, including either of them by name in the infobox seems like giving their estimates undue weight and seems highly unorthodox. Eik Corell ( talk) 08:11, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
Specifically the article [43]-- Prisencolin ( talk) 18:45, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
I found at least 15 articles in Wikipedia that cite the Medical Hypotheses journal, which is well-known for its promotion of pseudoscientific theories. Do most of these references need to be replaced? Jarble ( talk) 20:29, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
The article for Princess Lilian, Duchess of Halland ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs) makes extensive use of photographs as references. Especially in the Princess Lilian, Duchess of Halland#Honours section. Are these considered reliable sources? There is no mention of where they were taken nor is there any indication of what honour is in each pic. If they are okay a followup question is, since they are bare url's, how can they be formatted to avoid linkrot? Thanks ahead of time for any assistance that you can provide. MarnetteD| Talk 21:27, 23 February 2018 (UTC)
To my mind, the problem with using pictures as sources is not so much a "reliability" issue as an "OR" issue. And it's not about the medium "image" as such; it's about using sources to back up statements that are not intended as such by the medium's original author. Citing a source on Wikipedia, in a responsible, non-OR way, always means rendering a statement that can be attributed as such, as an intented message, to the original author of the source. If we could prove that the photographer of this picture originally published it with the intention of showing: 'here, she got this order', then it would be okay as a source. Since we can't (and it's highly unlikely they intended any such thing), we are left with a claim of fact that we can't attribute to an author but that we have made up ourselves. We are using the picture not as a source of somebody else's claims, but as evidence for our own claims. That's the very definition of "original research". Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
In the current case, all I'm seeing are random, blurry, uncaptioned photos of a person who happens to be wearing a variety of medals on her sash. Like this: what information is someone supposed to tease out of THAT? -- Calton | Talk 13:12, 25 February 2018 (UTC)
Having a disagreement at Talk:Mottainai#additional_references_for_expansion so want some clarification here. If a reliable source, such as http://www.abc.net.au which a search shows is used in 1,906 Wikipedia articles already, has an article titled Avoiding waste with the Japanese concept of 'mottainai' , does that prove its a concept not just a word? The argument is that they and other sources found aren't experts on "Japanese linguistics", that you need a "university press or peer-reviewed source by a Buddhist specialist", not a "popular news websites" to state something. Dream Focus 12:21, 21 February 2018 (UTC)
WP:NOTBLOG: questions that don't affect article content do not need to be answered on this noticeboard. Also, please stop commenting on named or unnamed other editors. |
---|
The following discussion has been closed by Francis Schonken. Please do not modify it. |
|
Is Legacy.com generally considered to be a RS? Should it be treated as a primary source if it is? I checked the RSN archives, but only found 3 hits none of which were conclusive. I also checked WP:EL/P, but found nothing there. Generally, official obituaries written by staff of major newspapers, etc. tend to be considered OK as RS, but ones written/submitted by family members seem to be treated as WP:UGC or WP:SPS.
The reason I'm asking is because I would like to know if
this can be considered a reliable source for
David Steiner, in particular stuff about his surviving family, place of internment, etc. The obit says at the bottom "Published in a Chicago Tribune Media Group Publication from Dec. 29 to Dec. 30, 2016" which might be referring to
this; owever, that Tribune page states that the obit is "courtesy of Chicago Jewish Funerals" which looks like to be
this. No idea who wrote the obit, but I think these are often directly written by a surving family member or funeral service employees based upon information provided by family members.Can this be used as a reliable source and if so are their any restrictions placed upon it? Would it be best to cite the original website it appeared on and then use the Patch as the |via=
parameter in
Template:Cite web? --
Marchjuly (
talk) 02:26, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
There are at least 49 articles in Wikipedia that cite Zero Hedge, which are mostly written by anonymous contributors using the pseudonym Tyler Durden. Would this make it an unreliable source for most purposes? Jarble ( talk) 05:44, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
English-language financial blogwould generally disqualify it; so would
classified as "alt-right", anti-establishment, conspiratorialGalobtter ( pingó mió) 05:46, 26 February 2018 (UTC)
"Many individual investors might also be unfamiliar with Zero Hedge, the blog associated with Mr. Ivandjiiski. Zero Hedge has emerged as a favorite daily read among Wall Street's literati. According to Quantcast, a digitical audience-measurement and advertising company, Zero Hedge recently attracted about 3.4 million monthly unique visitors. The website has built up an impressive amount of monthly traffic for a publication with the mystique of an underground operation. More mainstream blogging websites, such as TheStreet and Seeking Alpha, each attract 8–9 million monthly unique visitors, according to their advertising web pages. Zero Hedge and its principle contributor with the mysterious pseudonym are not exactly newcomers to the world of financial blogging. In 2009, a New York Magazine article, entitled "The Dow Zero Insurgency", shed light on Zero Hedge's little-known principal in a feature article on the burgeoning world of financial blooding... Zero Hedge's coverage of [a Goldman Sachs] story became emblematic of its unique brand of investigative journalism — one laced with a deeply cynical distrust of Wall Street... Zero Hedge is an amalgam of punchy economic analysis, conspiracy theories, and wonky rants about the failings of U.S. political and economic institutions ad policies... Its writers dart back and forth between conventional news coverage and opinion-laden editorials. Readers value the blog's frequent, topical updates and strong point of view. Followers of Zero Hedge also praise the author's cerebral brand of cynicism and determination to challenge mainstream views about business, finance, and politics... Many financial advisors and stock investors have bookmarked it (and others like it) and scan it for interesting headlines several times a day... etc."
"Perhaps the most famous blog on markets in general is Zero Hedge, a site with a cult following. Zero Hedge dwarfs all other financial market blogs. Started in 2009, the blog is written in an activist style and is highly critical of markets. It has managed to remain shrouded in mystery. It's still not entirely clear who started it and it's believed to be edited by several people..."
This site's unsentimental worldview is right in its header: "On a long enough timeline the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." Its anonymous writers post articles under the pseudonym "Tyler Durden"... about risks and shady developments in financial markets, news that impacts economies, and politics. It also runs guest posts by named contributors. Zero Hedge says its mission is "to widen the scope of financial, economic, and political information available to the professional investing public" and "to skeptically examine and, where necessary, attack the flaccid institution that financial journalism has become." It uses anonymity as "a shield from the tyranny of the majority." Whenever you need a little raw reality, swing by Zero Hedge."
The National Rifle Association has published a number of statements related to the organization's views on certain topics as well as direct responses to criticisms in the media. Are these statements, when attributed to the NRA reliable sources for the NRA's views on a subject.
In a related question, what determines the WP:WEIGHT that should be given to these views? One suggestion is the weight given to the NRA's statements is based on the number of independent sources that report it. An alternative view is weight is based on the topic. A number of topics related to the NRA have clear consensus weight for inclusion (criticism of the NRA for objecting to universal background checks for example). As the subject of the article is it reasonable to assume the NRA's stated position on the topic (assuming they have one) has sufficient weight for inclusion?
Here are two recent discussion topics related to this question [ [51]], [ [52]] Springee ( talk) 01:40, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
If John Q. Pennyfeather, a notable expert on x, publicly states, "I oppose x," and an article concerning x duly inserts and cites Pennyfeather's direct quote on this, would some secondary commentater be required to "interpret" Pennyfeather's quote before it could be inserted and cited in Wikipedia? If so, why? It seems to me that the concept of "weight" is intended to apply only to "points about which uncertainty still exists," and really has little bearing on points about which we have no reason to doubt their veracity, such as a direct quote reported by a reputable, reliable, and citeable source. One passer by ( talk) 05:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Again, "weight" has to do with uncertain or unresolved points, where a point of information has not yet been generally "settled," and questions of article neutrality (NPOV) start to come into play. If we wrote an article about the fact that the sky is blue, we wouldn't have to call in secondary sources to support that fact, as it's already a commonly accepted fact (I'm only talking about the most commonly agreed upon color of a cloudless sky here, so please don't nit pick on possible exceptions.) If however we write an article about a sometimes volitile and unresolved topic, such as gun legislation, now parts of such an article will be beyond reasonable question, such as the officially stated positions of the various parties, and for these there is no need to pull out secondary sources to verify that these are their officially stated positions (so long as we accurately describe them as just that).
Other parts of such an article will have to be "proportionately weighted" to represent the "majority scholarly weight," where there is such a thing, and in sections where nobody can say for certain what the "majority scholarly weight" is, both sides would simply have to be listed without "weighting" either way (true neutrality). The concept of "majority scholarly weight," is a very nebulous thing, but that is one of the few places that I know of where secondary sources are necessarily required.
In a case where a party's officially stated position may seem to conflict with the party's actual behavior, still their officially stated position needs no secondary sources, because their officially stated position is not a point of general uncertainty. Granted, if that party's actions may appear to notably conflict with their official position, and the apparent conflict between word and deed might require "interpretation," then secondary sources may be required to make such interpretations, but still, only the "interpretation" of the meaning of the disharmony between word and deed would require secondary sources (if such an interpretation might not be entirely obvious to a typical reader), yet their "officially stated position" itself would remain as a point of reasonable certainty, thus not requiring secondary sources to report on merely the official position. Here again, the concept of "weight" then becomes applicable, because in such cases where word and deed may not agree, we are now probably dealing again with uncertainty and unresolved points of information. One passer by ( talk) 18:59, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
Their book Tourism In India: An Overview (2 Vols.), Volume 1 By Rabindra Seth is the particular one under consideration. Can it be used to source challenges to tourism in India? Elektricity ( talk) 06:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Talk:Stephen_Miller_(political_advisor)#Lead Salon is, well, Salon and has been often discussed here. As for Michael Wolff, should this paragraph be included and cited in the lead: In Michael Wolff's book Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House, Miller was described as a "a fifty-five-year-old trapped in a thirty-two-year-old's body"; Wolff noted that "other than being a far-right conservative, it was unclear what particular abilities accompanied Miller's views. He was supposed to be a speechwriter, but if so, he seemed restricted to bullet points and unable to construct sentences. He was supposed to be a policy adviser but knew little about policy. He was supposed to be the house intellectual but was militantly unread. He was supposed to be a communications specialist but he antagonized almost everyone." Wolff, Michael (2018). Fire and Fury: Inside the Trump White House. Henry Holt and Co. pp. 64–65. ISBN 978-1250158062.
Wolff and his book have been described as: "dubiously sourced" Garber, Megan. "The Smearing of Nikki Haley". The Atlantic. "getting eviscerated over its accuracy — and it's not the first time" http://www.businessinsider.com/accuracy-of-michael-wolffs-new-trump-book-in-question-2018-1 "Wolff is not merely out of his depth—he frequently seems confused by even basic matters of political ideology—" www.slate.com/articles/arts/books/.../fire_and_fury_by_michael_wolff_reviewed.html "riddled with errors and rumors" https://www.mediaite.com/tv/tapper-wolffs-book-should-be-met-with-skepticism-riddled-with-errors-and-rumors/ etc, etc. NPalgan2 ( talk) 20:43, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
According to the Jerusalem Post, Miller is a "self described nationalist." Sounds pretty far-right to me. Perhaps changing the lead sentence to reflect that he is a "self described nationalist," and using the JPost as a cite for this would be the most "to the point" for the lead. One passer by ( talk) 22:12, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm sure we can find more that says he is right like this telegraph piece that says he embrace "alt right" ideas at Uni. Or another NY times piece that goes into all his right leaning policies and ideals. Not sure reliablity of Newsweek as don't follow many overseas papers but here they talk about his right-wing politics too. NZFC (talk) 22:34, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The more general debate has gone nowhere over the past 6 months. In the US, the term "far-right" can, in different contexts, refer to somebody particularly enthusiastic about mainstream conservatism, a person who is part of the Tea Party movement/ alt-right, or a straight-up neo-Nazi. Unfortunately, Wikipedia can't create words here, but using existing terms that better distinguish between these terms would be ideal. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 00:10, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This request seems moot, since, as pointed out above, we have many better sources describing him as far-right (including the New York Times and Business Insider, both impeccable sources.) If your objection is to the specific sources you cited, just rely on the others for that particular statement instead. If your objection is that we should never call someone far-right unless they explicitly identify that way themselves, regardless of what the sources say (and regardless of their quality or reliability), then your issue isn't a WP:RS issue and should be taken to WP:BLPN or WP:NPOVN rather than here. Personally, I would say that Salon passes WP:RS - keep WP:BIASED in mind; a source is only judged as reliable or unreliable based on their accuracy and reputation, not their point of view. But either way, that's irrelevant when it's only one of many sources. -- Aquillion ( talk) 03:33, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
User:SPECIFICO, you keep on saying that there's "overwhelming weight" of a "dozen other" RSs labelling Miller as far-right or some comparable label. Well, add them. Is the 'Edit source' button on Stephen Miller broken or something? NPalgan2 ( talk) 04:01, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This is a side discussion... but it does relate. We have had a lot of discussions recently about people described as being “far right” by various sources... but do these sources ever describe anyone as being less than “far” right? Is anyone ever described as being “near” right or “center” right ... or perhaps a “mainstream” right? (Examples please). Blueboar ( talk) 05:04, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
This conversation about the best "political descriptor" to use to best describe Steve Miller's political "leanings" has gotten me to wondering if the descriptor: "far-right" is used more in self description, or by left-leaning folks attempting to pigeonhole some of their political opponents on the right? Do any "right-leaning" folks use the term "far-right" to describe themselves? Perhaps the lead would be most neutral and accurate if it stated something like: "Miller describes himself as a nationalist, and has been described by some as far-right." One passer by ( talk) 12:46, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Can a advertisement found in an old newspaper be used as a source to place an individual in a certain place. For example if Ringling Bros. Circus had an advertisement for an upcoming event in the St Louis Post - Dispatch newspaper in 1956, can I accurately state "Ringling Bros. visited St Louis in 1956" and use the advertisement as my source? Idealee ( talk) 14:59, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
The archive is strong enough to establish that the ad was placed. I would note that lists of venues likely are available somewhere. As to "an individual" - even an official list of venues can not establish an individual's actual location on a given day. Collect ( talk) 15:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
I restored part of someone's edit, but the same guy then removed it again. [62] Dream Focus 16:42, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Article: Shreya Ghoshal
Full reference URL: http://m.deccanherald.com/?name=http://www.deccanherald.com/content/661487/my-whole-focus-always-music.html
Content: She has sung in 14 languages. Zafar24 Talk 00:34, 2 March 2018 (UTC)