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 237 | Archive 238 | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | → | Archive 245 |
Hi--For some reason unknown to me, a song I co-wrote that was featured the film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, and which is listed in the "Soudtrack" section on the movie's Wikipedia page, was marked "citation needed." The song is listed among those not included on the soundtrack release; however, the song is included in the film's credits (link below). Apparently this doesn't constitute a "reliable source." Can that really be possible? I can even tell you at what moment the song appears in the film--it's playing on the car radio when the three stars get picked up hitchhiking...Thanks for your help. The credit is at 1:07 on the video. [1] Senorartkat ( talk) 02:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Do I just post the YouTube link as a footnote? Senorartkat ( talk) 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I added my name to the Wikipedia page a long long time ago, but I never thought it would be thought of as a conflict of interest since the song is, in fact, in the movie. The "citation needed" seems to have appeared pretty recently, not sure why. I cited IMDb as a source not knowing it was user edited, and once again, unaware that it could be considered conflict of interest. Whatever; I'd appreciate your help very much. You are a fine human being, and I'm not stupid enough to lie about something that would be so easy to disprove. Senorartkat ( talk) 00:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I think it's good you're scrupulous. Thanks all around. Senorartkat ( talk) 03:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Is Poets & Quants considered a reliable third-party source that we can cite please? It seems reliable to me but I am not sure who is behind the website. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you! Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to know if a Wikileaks source can be mentioned as reference or reliable source. M A A Z T A L K 09:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
So, where is the line in the sand? Which opinion is the best opinion? I would love a closing verdict on this issue. M A A Z T A L K 13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at the Brie Larson article. On the opening lede, it has a link as a reference to Natalie Robehmed, who is on the editorial staff of Forbes. I know the sites subdomain is essentially a webhosting outfit, built with contributors but is it valid source. scope_creep ( talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Since November 2017, I've had a dispute with Administrator JzG about the use of a particular source in the article on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. On 19 November 2017, JzG stripped the article of a book by Italian physical chemist Enzo Tiezzi, [2] see this diff. The dispute remains unresolved by the time of writing, as JzG has so far declined to enter into a discussion of the substance to the argument, see my talk page for details on this.
Let me restate my most important point already made on my talk page: According to the prevailing WP content guideline on reliable sources, predatory publishing pertains only to low quality articles published in journals lacking a reliable peer review process. But Tiezzi's book is indeed a book, so the guideline obviously does not apply here.
Of general interest to other editors on this noticeboard is my concern that the ban on predatory publishers is too restrictive to be fair when books are boldly being stripped from WP articles whenever the publisher involved (in this case, WIT Press) is suspected of predatory publishing of articles. I would like some response from other editors on this issue, thank you.
References
References
End of post. Gaeanautes ( talk) 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor is suggesting that Barnes Review is an acceptable source to comment on Walt Disney Companys's values without a third party source mentioning their criticism as significant. [5] If you've never heard of this source, try reading the second sentence of our article. (It was enough that after finding this I checked if the source was used anywhere else in wikipedia articles. It is, but all of the uses seem probably okay, fairly non contentious claims about people somehow involved in the magazine.) Assuming there is no dispute over the unsuitability of this source and I know this isn't really the purpose of this board, I'm hoping at a minimum people here will have some experience how to counsel an editor who believe such a source is acceptable since I'm at a loss and it doesn't seem to raise to the level for ANI of itself. I initially thought that maybe this editor just didn't realise what Barnes Review was, but the fact they initially added it [6], combined with a look at their edit history suggests to me they probably are aware. Nil Einne ( talk) 21:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
At Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Giulio Meotti's article The silence of the West Ynet 22 February 2012 was quoted for the view:
Giulio Meotti has argued the opposite position – that antisemitism has become socially acceptable in Western media and that the world tolerates murder of Jewish children
This extraordinary hyperbole is quoted in the lead as though it were a representative view. Now Meotti was shown to be a serial plagiarist soon after that date, and Ynet dropped him almost immediately afterwards from its columns.
The evidence that the views he puts forth as his own are filched from googling other journalists was documented by Marc Tracy:-
He was also dropped as a contributor to Commentary that same year and in 2014 The Italian Informazione Correttas gay rights activist Angelo Pezzana, otherwise close to the ultra-right Israeli circles, fired him.(Andrea Mollica, Furiosa lite sui gay fra ultràs della destra filoisraeliana Gad Lerner.it, 29 January 2014.
An editor has restored Meotti's stuff saying he is quotable for his own views, but the evidence is, given he lifts material from all over the net, no one can say if those are his views or borrowed from other journalists. In any case he is a fringe voice, and in my view totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Nishidani ( talk) 11:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm refraining from following BLP by removing the three poor sources and anything not verified by the other two references in an attempt to give Lidiia Kondratieva a better understanding of WP:RS while trying to minimize escalating her personal dispute with me. (I realize the outdated press release might be used for basic historical information.)
What do others think of the three sources and how they are used? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
ApricotFoot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is creating lots of articles on table tennis players, many of which rely solely on this website as their only source. Obscure sports notability is not exactly an area in which I have a lot of interest, but this seems kind of shaky to me. Thoughts? Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The articles are for gold, silver and bronze medallists at World Championships so I would not describe them as 'Obscure sports notablilty'. Granted that many only carry the one source but surely that is why they have been created as stubs for other users to add and improve them? ApricotFoot ( talk) 10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Surely you cannot be serious, a bronze medal at a world championship in one of the worlds biggest participation sports! If you don't think that is notable then it begs the question as to whether every bronze medal for the vast majority of Olympics, Commonwealths, Europeans (non mainstream sports) should be deleted. Anyway as I said they are only stubs. I will add more citations from sports book collections that I have to help the issue, but it will take a couple of days. ApricotFoot ( talk) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying add citations for Donkey Kong Country#Audio, but I've had difficulty finding reliable sources to support its information. The difficulty, in my opinion, is because the soundtrack was published in 1994 and many of the physical sources which have documented information about it are now gone, and it's from a time before there was a large internet presence of online media documenting this kind of stuff. While I have a good idea that the two pieces of information that I'm trying to verify are correct: That the official name for the track is "DK Island Swing", not "DK Swing" as the Square Enix article names it, and that the album has "hidden" bonus tracks, it seems that the only source of information are online databases.
The most promising source that I can find is video game music database. While the site does rely on community-generated content, it requires registration, and edits are not submitted until they are reviewed by trusted editors. The about page is somewhat reasuring, though the only people connected with are online pseudonyms. While this is not the preferable source for this information, the information seems to be important information when discussing the soundtrack in the article, and I can find no better sources.
Basically, is this an acceptable use case, and if not, what should be done with the content?
Thanks, -- E to the Pi times i ( talk) 22:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
On Tikun Olam blog page someone added a claim by the blogger about a source of his. The blog on its own isn’t considered RS but can it be in this case since it is about the blogger?
The person who is supposed to be the informant past away about two years ago do no BLP issue here. But he was a public figure and I would assume th reliability of the source is important. Change
Kigelim ( talk) 03:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
it does not involve claims about third partiesand possibly SELFPUB(4)
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticityas well - this should be excluded as long as it is sourced to Silverstein himself (whose blog is generally not a WP:RS - though I admit I read it regularly (in between of the crud, some 10%-15% of pieces actually have some information. Middleeast Eye is not a RS either, and in any event they have stated
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.making their RSness moot). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Did or didn’t his informant break Israeli law by telling Silverstein the information? Absolutely! For your question, Silverstein uses whatever source to blackwash Israel. He even relays on comments on his blog as sources. The fact no one caught on this scoop of his means either he isn’t taken seriously or WP:BLP prevents me of completing the sentence. Kigelim ( talk) 16:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
A WP:SPA who has a WP:COI insists against WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP to insert his own work, which is apparently WP:SPS, at Metaphysics.
The text he entered is "* Ramakrishna Surathu (2018) You are God, Independently Published, ISBN 1977025641". Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Self published doesn't mean the information published is worthless, after all if it's selling on amazon. The whole book is centred at the "Being" and "Existence". Perhaps the author is new, perhaps the author has truly known him/her self. What the author says in the book is exactly what is popularised as Metaphysics. The author in the book gave a technique called "wintess", perhaps the reader of the book may benefit by knowing that metaphysics (concepts of Being / Existence) is not just a dull theory (without any practical applicability) and it can be practically proven as a result of execution of the method him/herself.
Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva ( talk) 21:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
--22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)"...[Loesch's] questioning the conservative political credentials of commentators who were supporting Donald J. Trump at that juncture."[ "'Who The Hell Is This Chick?': Dana Loesch Goes Off On Trump Supporter Kayleigh McEnany". May 9, 2016. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
Or, just addressing me, for my pointing out, (as you yourself imply) that referencing Breitbart is a nonarguement here?-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)You wrote: "Ah yes, Scott Baker, who prior to working for TheBlaze was a co-founder of Breitbart, and before that was a local news anchor. [...]"
Note: This was originally posted here on March 23 but received no response and became archived seven days later. I am positing it once again at a different time of day in hope of it receiving attention. Please remove this post if my re-adding it is disallowed or otherwise inappropriate. Thank you.
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 three 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: [10] [11] [12] [13]), 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 22:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the GA nomination for Nirvana (Inna album) and I'd like to ask for some more opinions regarding two sources: CelebMix and DirectLyrics. As I've pointed out to the nominee, CelebMix has no indication of editorial oversight and is largely written by volunteers: [14]. DirectLyrics reliability was brought up here in 2016, with two editors questioning whether it was reliable in general: see Archive 216. I'd consider both sources to be unreliable in general.
As the nominee has pointed out, however, the authors of the articles he has sourced are a cut above the rest from both sites. The CelebMix author cited, Jonathan Currinn, states he is a graduate of Staffordshire University and has written for several other minor publications [15]. The DirectLyrics author cited, Kevin Apaza, is the manager of the website and is a University of Roehampton graduate: [16]
Neither of the journalists are used to say anything that is controversial, libelous or overly-promotional. I have no reason to doubt their statements are accurate. But would you consider either of these journalists notable enough for general information added to a music-related article? I don't want to make a ruling on accepting or rejecting the sources without hearing from at least a couple people here. Thanks. Freikorp ( talk) 01:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I am currently working on a draft for the Natina Reed article, and ran across this interview here with youknowigotsoul.com. I was wondering if this would be reliable enough for me to use in my draft? It is one of the few more extended interviews that I could find with Reed. Aoba47 ( talk) 07:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant ( talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
TO AVOID FORUM SHOPPING AND DISCUSSION SPLITTING, PLEASE COMMENT AT THE ARTICLE OR BLP NOTICEBOARD MASH star Stiers died on March 4th. In 2009 the "gossip boy" wordpress blog published an "interview" with Stiers in which "Stiers" came out as gay. This contradicts an earlier (RS) interview in which he said he was not gay. The gossip boy interview has subsequently been picked up and cited in many sources including ABC and the NYT obit for Stiers (NYT cites ABC, ABC cites gossip boy). There has been long standing but contentious consensus to exclude this info based on the WP:GRAPEVINE argument, but with Stiers death, the issue has been reopened. The discussion could use additional eyes/voices from experienced editors Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#gay_summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResultingConstant ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I have done about seventy of these for Chinese minor geography articles. This is the way I've been doing it recently. Seeking your thoughts and opinions. Please help me get as close into line with the standards of English Wikipedia as possible so I can do these in the right way.
(I'm still looking forward to any input you may have! Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC))
Summary: Source 1 xianning.gov is directly from the local government- this type of website often includes typos on rarely used characters. I feel certain that it is a good source, but am I citing it correctly? Source 2 xzqh.org is from a secondary source which I feel is a reliable source on the administrative divisions of China- it is often used by other people in English wikipedia and on Baidu Baike. It often includes typos on rarely used characters. Is it really acceptable? The third source stats.gov.cn is the central government's lists of names and statistical numbers for administrative divisions; it often includes typos. 4 is another secondary source, less reliable but sometimes helpful. Having all four cited at once seems to me to me the best way to make sure that wikipedia is consulting all the relatively authoritative sources. There are definitely other sources, but I don't know about them and I hope you will tell me about them if they are out there. In essence, is there anything obviously out of line with my methodology, citations, or the statements I create based on looking at these sources?
1 Source: 4 sources [1] [2] [3] [4]
2 Article: /info/en/?search=Xianning
3 Content: Xianning has 1 district, 4 counties, 1 county-level city and 1 other area.
District:
Counties:
City:
Other Area:
References
咸宁市辖嘉鱼县、通城县、崇阳县、通山县、赤壁市、咸安区四县一市一区和一个高新技术产业园区,共设12个乡、51个镇、6个办事处,下辖1049个村民委员会、10145个村民小组。
2000年第五次全国人口普查,咸宁市总人口2700678人。其中:咸安区567598人,嘉鱼县358646人,通城县427867人,崇阳县456792人,通山县378849人,赤壁市510926人。 2004年末,咸宁市总面积10022平方千米,总人口约276.9万人。辖1个市辖区、4个县,代管1个县级市。共有6个街道、51个镇、12个乡,131个居委会、1034个村委会。
统计用区划代码 名称 421201000000 市辖区 421202000000 咸安区 421221000000 嘉鱼县 421222000000 通城县 421223000000 崇阳县 421224000000 通山县 421281000000 赤壁市
At Yugambeh people, two editors are removing Germaine Greer White Beech: The Rainforest Years A&C Black 2014 and the material sourced in it, while restoring Rory O’Connor, The Kombumerri:Aboriginal people of the Gold Coast, published by R. O'Connor, Brisbane 1997
The editors who want to remove Greer and put in O'Connor, User:BlackfullaLinguist and The Drover's Wife claim Greer is an 'idiot' unqualified to write on 'indigenous issues'. BlackfullaLinguist is also claiming that his ethnicity and that of O'Connor trumps any outside scholarship (there may well be also a WP:COI problem here, esp. since he tells us that he is editing Wikipedia on this topic in order to 'get the truth out about my people.')
I have no idea what the 'truth' is. All I know is that experts have remarked on considerable confusion in our sources, and, like Greer who cites them, mention these problems. People of Yugambeh descent are conflicted about many claims various descendants have made. Can third parties please tell me why O'Connor's inaccessible self-published book is RS, while Greer's is, I am told, RS only in so far as that might be 'rat shit'. Nishidani ( talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
At what point is the fact that a reliable source quotes a Wordpress blog for a statement of fact give an imprimatur to the claim made in that blog? This is currently the gist of a dispute at Talk:David Ogden Stiers where prior discussions held the defunct "Gossip-boy" blog was not reliable, but which has now been quoted in reliable sources, sometimes with no attribution. (I rather figure that eliding attribution on a lengthy and exact quote does not make it into a "different source", by the way. What is does is show blatant plagiarism by the "reliable sources" which is now common). (The notice of the RfC above appears to give a notice sans information about the actual issues involved) Thanks. Collect ( talk) 17:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Should books published by Books on Demand GmbH located in Norderstedt Germany, be considered a reliable source? A search shows hundreds of Wikipedia articles citing BOD publications as a source.
Both their website and the German article de:Books on Demand describe it as a Self-publishing platform. To my understanding, unless the author is already notable or trusted, this pretty much rules out such sources as references for most things other than themselves, per WP:SPS. Mathglot ( talk) 22:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Dispute at Talk:Ophidiophobia#Indiana_Jones_BRRD,_if_anyone_is_interested if the sources used are reliable in context. More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The page for Jeremy Bates (American football) incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.58.128 ( talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe this is plagiarism, and Wikipedia should say
Please confirm or correct my understanding. Thanks! Carte Rouge ( talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
We are currently in a heated discussion right now over the reliable sources added to Bullet Club member Gino Gambino and this user claims BLP and keeps reverting it so I was wondering if these independent sources are reliable [21]
[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan ( talk • contribs)
Here’s a source that another user have provided when added Gambino [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan ( talk • contribs)
Snooganssnoogans ( talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs), and myself are in a dispute over whether a working paper by a PhD student at York University meets our standards regarding reliable sources. The paper is from October 2015, never made it to publication, and apparently is only accessible today via Wayback Machine (an indication that the author herself abandoned it). The paper in question is here. Additionally, there is a media article based on (and explicitly referring to) this very same working paper, that Volunteer Marek thinks serves as an independent verification of the claim the original working paper was cited as source for.
In my opinion this does not meet our WP:RS standard for reliable sources. But as the dispute is bordering on an edit war now, I ask for a third opinion here. -- bender235 ( talk) 17:54, 12 March 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.
Source : Title=A Survey of Hinduism 3rd ed.| Author= Klaus Klostermaier | publisher=SUNY Press | isbn=978-0-7914-7082-4 | page=25 Article : Bhimbetka rock shelters Content : I am merely adding the opinion of Klaus Klostermaier about the significance of Bhimbetka Rock shelter paintings, and its not to validate any claim by me. It is only merely adding more valuable content to the article. This is the opinion of Klostermaier which infuriated above mentioned two wiki-users
"Nobody has as yet interpreted the religious significance of the prehistoric cave paintings at Bhīmbetka (from 100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE), which were discovered only in 1967, and we do not know whether and how the people who created these are related to present-day populations of India. These show, amongst other objects, horses clearly readied for riding. According to the “Invasionists” horse breeding and horse riding were an innovations that the Aryans introduced to India after 1500 BCE.
I added a scholarly citation of Klaus Klostermaier to an article Bhimbetka rock shelters . He is a prominent German-Canadian scholar on Hinduism and Indian history and culture and has a PhD in "Ancient Indian History and Culture" from the University of Bombay in 1969.
Two wiki-users named User:D4iNa4 & User:Doug Weller are removing the above mentioned citation added by me.
One of them , User:Doug Weller, is specifying 3 reasons for this.
1. He is saying Klaus Klostermaier is not an archaeologist. So his opinion can't be included in this article.
But this is an article related to Bhimbetka rock shelters, and what is wrong in adding any scholarly ciatation related to this? why are these wiki-users insisting that only an archaeologist's opinions can be added to this article? Does this article has any speciality which other wiki-articles does not have?
2. He is saying Kalus Klosermaier is not a reliable source
Klaus has a phD in Indian History and culture. Isn't that reliable enough, to express his opinion? Please note that i am only adding more scholarly content related to Bhimbetka Cave Paintings, to the article and not trying to validate any claim.
3. He is saying the dating of Klaus as the cave painting being older than 10000 BCE is wrong.
But archelogical Survey of India in their publication has clearly stated that the cave painting in question here is of mesolithic era. (that is before 10000BCE) So Klaus is very correct in his dating.
Above all, why all this fuss about adding a citation by a scholar. Why these two users are so scared against the opinions of Klaus, is what i dont understand. WHat is wrong in adding an opinion by a scholar like Klaus? If they have any citation from any other scholar which criticize the opinion of Klaus, they can add it also. Nobody is prohibiting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banasura ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
While attempting to add statements by Seth Rich's parents to the "Murder of Seth Rich" Talk page for eventual inclusion in the article, I was informed by an editor that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC
So I am now inquiring about an exception, since the Daily Mail has an exclusive video interview with Seth Rich's father in which he states (on camera):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html (the video is embedded in the page, after some photos, and has a title "Seth Rich's father reveals son was joining Hillary campaign)
In the video, Seth Rich's father can be seen and simultaneously heard stating, "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him."
So, it appears to me that the truthfulness of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, and the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence.
This inquiry about an exception to the "generally unreliable" vote at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC is separate from any ongoing discussion to possibly include the quote in the "Murder of Seth Rich" article. So far, documentation of the job offer there has been suppressed. At the very least, it should be added as a reference. StreetSign ( talk) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean "no one else reported it"? That is deliberately deceptive. I have already reported that CNN and WashingtonPost have reported that Seth Rich's father said that Seth Rich told him that he received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Many other sources have published it.
"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you."
and on CNN:
"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"
reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html
Do you believe that all those sources were altered too? StreetSign ( talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Speaking only to the context of whether or not the source can be used and not to content issues of undue weight, the source in question is Seth Rich's father, not the Daily Mail. It is a primary source to a recorded statement made by the father. As such, all due caution must be made when using the source and any interpretation of the source must be extremely limited. It's my opinion that its reasonably sources the statement "In an interview with the Daily Mail, Seth Rich's father said his son was..." and then the verbatim quote. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 04:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller I have no interest in DM at all. And I have no interest in conspiracy theories. I did notice that the Seth Rich article did not contain any mention of the job offer from the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though his father spoke about it on more than one occasion with reporters, and considered it significant in some way. I posted on the Seth Rich Talk page, and was immediately accused of supporting conspiracy theories. Someone eventually even deleted my posts and those of everyone who responded. At no time did I change the actual Seth Rich article. I was informed that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC
And after reading it I concluded that an exception was a possibility. Once again, I don't care about DM at all. I did not even know DM existed. The video itself is clearly reliable, contrary to the claim by MjolnirPants above. The video, as pointed out in another reply above, a Primary source, so it should not be excluded.
I do understand that editors do not want to promote a conspiracy theory. Neither do I. But it does not seem right to suppress the job offer on that basis. There are many examples on WP, notably the Lee Oswald article as one example, where some facts are seized upon by conspiracy theorists, but they belong in the article anyway, because they are facts that contribute to understanding the background of the story. I don't think that we want to engage in anything equivalent to editing Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin. Seth Rich's father made these statements. They have been reported. They have been deliberately excluded from the Seth Rich article, using a variety of weak excuses. The authentic nature of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence, and it is independently supported by similar statements made by the father to WashingtonPost.
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later in the video) "He had just found out that they wanted him." StreetSign ( talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Seth Rich's father did not consider it trivial. He disclosed it in separate interviews. The documented quotes are
"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered."
"He had just found out that they wanted him."
I don't see you complaining that the bike rack (already in the article) is trivial. StreetSign ( talk) 00:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We can easily differentiate between a documented, published fact and a conspiracy theory. The fact belongs in the article. The conspiracy theories do not. Attempting to repeatedly suppress the fact with obstructive tactics is wrong. StreetSign ( talk) 16:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. That does describe the situation more accurately than the excuses that were given by other people. We have documented proof (including a video, and published accounts on CNN and WashingtonPost) that Seth Rich's father said "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." but there are a relatively few editors who have taken control of the article and will not permit it to be in writing on Wikipedia. They label anyone who wants to publish the fact a "conspiracy theorist". They will eventually be overruled. They will not be able to keep Nikolai Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin forever. /info/en/?search=Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs StreetSign ( talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
So I am a little unclear about whether the Seamount Catalog at Earth.ref is a reliable source. There are some parts of the website that suggest it's usergenerated, others which suggest it is not. I am only interested in the coordinates for individual seamounts (such as the ones here), which I need for the article I am drafting at User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Musicians Seamounts - the current coordinates are too approximate/rounded for my liking. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the reliability of the website On the Issues has never been addressed here. I see this website used as a source on political biographies fairly often, and I'd like to get community input on its reliability. A specific example is at Don Bacon (general). Another example is Jackie Walorski. It seems like On the Issues aggregates information on political stances from a variety of sources--candidate websites, speeches, newspaper articles, candidate questionnaires, Vote Smart surveys, etc. The reliability of the information they gather is probably generally good, although not necessarily. My main issue with whether or not we should source from it is one of cherrypicking. You can see that the website covers a lot of issues, and it's typical on a political biography to see one or two or three issues picked from this source and highlighted. My question is, how are we deciding which issues to highlight? I think a reasonable answer would be that we should highlight issues that are also covered by other reliable, secondary sources--so perhaps this is more an issue of due weight. Although it could be that On the Issues isn't reliable at all, since their editorial process is unclear. I apologize if this is the wrong venue to host this discussion, but I think it would be really useful to get some general guidance on this. Thanks in advance. Marquardtika ( talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Can this Buzzfeed News article [26] be used as a source for the following text?:
Another editor disputes that Buzzfeed News is WP:RS and insists that this piece in particular is an "opinion article". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The Wilks information can also be sources to Mother Jones at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/inside-right-wing-youtube-turning-millennials-conservative-prageru-video-dennis-prager/ through https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/30/conservatives-spend-millions-proselytizing-school-children/ , and allegedly (I'm not going to do the work) through the underlying documents (990s, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) which are filed publicly by the Heavenly Father’s Foundation and the Thirteen Foundation. Carte Rouge ( talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This looks much like a solid news article. Note that "told BuzzFeed News" is repeated eleven times. Buzzfeed news articles are usually okay and quickly skimming through this article I saw nothing alarming.
But the sentence "Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers."
is clearly problematic because it is pulled from the source. The sentence must be inside quotation marks, and should be
attributed in the text in order to
avoid plagiarism. ASAP.
Politrukki (
talk) 19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Partly a NPOV issue, this has RS implications as well. At present we use Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's writings as a source in over 100 articles (and we might have attributed views (sourced via other sources) beyond that) - source search. In particular I would like to point out the following illustrative examples:
The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968.(beyond the lack of context of 1968, most other sources say Piotr Śmietański
Its composition is said to be 40 percent Ukrainian, 5 percent Belarusian, 5 percent Polish, and 50 percent Polesian. I'll note that the Russian Wikipedia (and sourcing there) disagrees with this (the existence of Polesian itself seems to be contested by some).
The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish,
It is also the largest killing of ethnic Poles in history, outside any armed conflict.in the lede. He is also used attributed to refer to this as a genocide.
In October 1943, 600 Jewish and Russian prisoners attempted an escape at the Sobibór extermination camp. About 60 survived and joined the Belarusian partisans. In Eastern Europe, many Jews joined the ranks of the Soviet partisans: throughout the war, they faced antisemitism and discrimination from the Soviets and some Jewish partisans were killed, but over time, many of the Jewish partisan groups were absorbed into the command structure of the much larger Soviet partisan movement.
Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz estimates that in the first years after the war, the Jewish denunciations and direct involvement in the pro-Soviet wave of terror, resulted in the killing of approximately 3,500 to 6,500 non-Jewish Poles including members of the Home Army and National Armed Forces.in contrast to
In "After the Holocaust," Chodakiewicz states: "In sum, probably a minimum of 400 and a maximum of 700 Jews and persons of Jewish origin perished in Poland from July 1944 to January 1947.".... unattributed use:
Many Jews did not wish to remain where their previously large communities in Poland had been decimated by the German occupation; many fled the imposition of the Soviet backed political regime which persecuted the bourgeoisie and religion, including Judaism; many aimed to pursue the Zionist objectives in Palestine..
Peasants who broke the boycott were beaten; Jews offering their services in the surrounding villages were also physically attacked.and a few others.
As to why such use might be troubling, particularly without context - Marek Jan Chodakiewicz has been called out by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2009 and in 2017, as well by Never Again Poland and Hope not Hate 2017 Hope Not Hate on Chodakiewicz. Chodakiewicz's activities have been criticized on two separate fronts:
References
While mentioned briefly in previous RSN discussions (e.g. here in the context of whether citing an unreliable source would make it reliable), Chodakiewicz has not been discussed as a source previously here to the best of my knowledge. What would be the appropriate use of Chodakiewicz on the English Wikipedia? Icewhiz ( talk) 09:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Corrected Smietanski's date of death.(per [36], [37], [38]). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That seemed particularly obvious in July 2008, when he wrote in Najwyzszy Czas! about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who he claimed was at one time a Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists whose mother was a "feminist, social-liberal, hippie and a fan of F.D. Roosevelt."[40],
In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. The term “white genocide” is a common white nationalist trope, with many pointing to South Africa and falsely claiming that white people are systematically massacred by people of color.[41]. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You were already informed that Chodkiewicz states there is no genocide in South Africa. His article states clearly that there is no genocide. Why are you repeating a false claim that can be easily confirmed to be false by quoting what he writes? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
As to the beginning of the statement by Icewhiz, it seems that a large part of it is strange opposition to describing Soviet crimes and atrocities, I am afraid that seems to indicate a very strong POV. It is widely known that Soviets engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide against Polish population. Sourcing information about this is not something controversial as Icewhiz alledged.Is Icewhiz disputing that NKVD and Soviets conducted ethnic genocide against Poles?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Any historian who writes about historical times such as these yet never raises anyone else's hackles must be a very boring and lazy historian. It can be said that Chodkiewicz's writing upsets quite a few people, but that is not by itself a reason to exclude him. The opinion of organizations like SPLC that are not historical experts is especially irrelevant (but with due care could be mentioned in the historian's own article). Where Chodkiewicz disagrees with other experts about a historical event, we can give both opinions in conformity with NPOV. Zero talk 23:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968.. And also on: Piotr Śmietański
According to Chodakiewicz, he emigrated from Poland in 1968 to Israel, but other historians disagree.. That the text presently main-space on enwiki - which is currently supported by this inline citation. I'll note that the "Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?" question appears in a new paragraph immediately after
Około 20 tysięcy osób pochodzenia żydowskiego zdecydowało się na wyjazd za granicę. Nie ma jeszcze szczegółowych badań profilu tej grupy, ale wydaje się, że wielu z nich to zwykli ludzie. Mała część marcowej emigracji to SB-becy: kilkaset osób związanych było z aparatem terroru.(20,000 people of Jewish origin decided to go abroad ... Most ordinary, a few hundred associated with SB's terror apparatus). The question would seem to be tied to the immediately preceding passage - however I agree this is inappropriate use of the source. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It may be a Fleet Street paper, but its website has become a mecca for conspiracy craziness:
Also here; simply typing the name of a pseudoscience conspiracy theory into Google gets three results from the Express. Serendi pod ous 08:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The issue is whether thearda.com is a reliable source? It's moot. Several definitely reliable sources will also provide similar definitions. Here is Oxford Dictionaries: faith healing; American Heritage Dictionary faith healing. These dictionaries do not say "especially Christian" or specifically refer to laying on hands. Are they necessary to your purposes? In my search, I also found an article that appeared in Science, which is the second-most prestigious science journal in the anglosphere: "The Science of Faith Healing" Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
To anyone who might be interested, there is an open request for comments which relates to reliable sources and categorising faith healing as a pseudoscience that people might like to visit. This follows a previous request for comments on the same issue that was held some time ago.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
"thearda.com" is simply the website of the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). They are an online information source, collecting data about American and international religion. "The archive now includes both American and international collections as well as features for educators, journalists, religious congregations, and researchers." It is not an independent organization. It is currently co-funded and effectively owned by:
I would like to know if it can be reliable to use a Twitter account as a source for daily ratings. For example here was previously discussed about this, they did not give me an exact answer. An article where the source is used is Por amar sin ley among others. The Twitter account is Produ. It's from a company that publishes content about series and more. In fact, the account is official. It is verified. Your website is this, but there are always problems to be able to navigate in it.-- Philip J Fry / talk 00:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Is automobilesreview.com a reliable source? I recently noticed an editor whose behavior appears to be that of a spammer ( Jody 99) adding links to this website. This raised my suspicions. Although Jody 99 has been reverted, there are multiple other uses of automobilesreview.com as a reference (not as a result of any obvious spamming, as far as I can tell). I'm not familiar enough with this subject area to know if this is an acceptable source to use as a reference of automobile news or not. Deli nk ( talk) 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
http://timepass.com.pk/sana-javed-biography-date-of-birth-age-height-weight-education-affair-scandal-drama-movie/ Plum3600 ( talk) 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I am hoping to determine whether or not musicinafrica.net is a reliable, verifiable source. Recently I have been involved at Mwasiti hoping to clean the article in the aftermath of a likely undisclosed paid editing case per [47]. The article is now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwasiti, and the discussion seems to be moving towards keep, though I support deletion. Most of the keep arguments center around the WP:NMUSIC policy that states that an artist with that "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". However, the only source that makes such a claim about Mwasiti is [48] her profile on musicinafrica.net. I am concerned about the verifiablity of this site, as I have not been able to find further evidence of this claim anywhere else (with the exception of Wikipedia mirrors), and several of the other claims made by musicinafrica.net I was also not able to verify. I am also concerned about the disclaimer found at the bottom of the profile I cited, which reads "Disclaimer: Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes. If any track or video embedded on this platform violates any copyrights please inform us immediately and we will take it down. Please read our Terms of Use for more." These terms of use [49] and a descriptions page found on the website of the company that owns musicinafrica [50] show that the content on the website is user-generated, i.e created by accounts people have made, a major concern given that an editor on Wikipedia was paid to create an article of Mwasiti and could have planted information that would make the article subject notable per our guidelines. I believe all of the above calls into question the verifiability of the website and its content.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 14:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
On its masthead WikiTRIBUNE self-identifies as WikiTRIBUNEPILOT
On its subscriptions page, founder Jimmy Wales writes, "We are launching … We are a tiny operation today with big ambitions for the future. Your support will help us to improve the technology and hire more journalists."
At its Help & FAQs page, the introduction begins, "Since we launched the pilot site…."
Clearly, WikiTRIBUNE remains a tiny pilot site still in launch phase, with an admitted deficit in technology and journalists.
My question therefore is: Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as a WP:RELIABLE source?
WP:QUESTIONABLE cautions us, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."
In my opinion, given its startup nature, limited resources, and unproven track record, WikiTRIBUNE should not be cited by editors within Wikipedia articles. We could proactively avoid disputed references by expressing a consensus to that effect. KalHolmann ( talk) 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
In the case at hand, the "article" is written by one named and six unnamed contributors (that is, unnamed at the top of the story, and whose "names" do not indicate reportorial or journalistic expertise), and is constantly changeable. A source which can be changed at any moment, by unnamed persons, is clearly never a "reliable source" any more than Wikipedia is. The "comments" page has an interesting comment by a person who asks "I think an interesting story would be whether a US citizen would be breaking the law by buying this. ..." This clearly suggests that a person in some presumed control of the source used is specifically asking that his point of view or question be treated in the article. Sorry, but I fear I consider WT to not yet meet WP:RS rules. Collect ( talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Estcoin appears also to have major copyvio problems, alas. Collect ( talk) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Is chartmasters.org a reliable source. I've been using it as a source on List of best-selling albums, List of best-selling albums of the 2000s (century), List of best-selling singles, etc. I'm now having second thoughts and am looking for guidance.
Richard Hendricks ( talk) 18:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing this here. Text has been removed from articles Spectre_(security_vulnerability) and Advanced Micro Devices which is widely covered by RS, such as Forbes, CNBC, CNN, and numerous tech sites. At Talk:Spectre_(security_vulnerability)#Reversion_of_AMD_text_on_Spectre, editor @ Dbsseven: is insisting that another source disputes the text. That source is a tweet from someone the editor claims is an expert. My question, is this tweet [52] a reliable source? Apologies if I left anything pertinent out. O3000 ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ryan Shrout is the founder and lead analyst at Shrout Researchand the owner of PC Perspective.. But, Ryan Shrout, Shrout Research, and PC Perspective all appear to be missing from WP. If he's an RS, you'd think there would be something. O3000 ( talk) 19:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
disingenuous, please let's keep this civil. O3000 ( talk) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Advanced Micro Devices Inc said on Thursday its microprocessors are susceptible to both variants of the Spectre security flaw, days after saying its risk for one of them was “near zero”.How can you think that means there was no change in position? The same type of wording can be found in source after source. It’s why the markets were in turmoil. The two sentence tweet you want to use alludes to all the sources being wrong. O3000 ( talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This appears to have gotten off topic. My point to include a statement saying "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y" can be well supported by multiple RS for both points. I believe this to be fair prose to build consensus around. 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I would avoid using a Tweet by itself for a controversial statement, but RSes noticing a tweet would then be reasonable to point to and/or quote the tweet if it is considered relevant. This is even the case if the tweet is from a verified Twitter user and a known expert in said field; it's better to have RSes tell us why something is important when it comes off social media then make that judgement ourselves. Something uncontroversial, that's less a problem. -- Masem ( t) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
someis weasely and misleading. "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD denied that there was any change in their position." O3000 ( talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, obviously a source that didn't update isn't relevant. Any source that actually followed the story would have updated. Not sure what you're looking at. The top financial and tech sites all used words that meant change, usually in more stronger terms. O3000 ( talk) 00:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The sources clearly show a change in AMD’s position. WP does not sweep news under the rug:
The old text is an incomplete synthesis of the facts from RS, and therefore not NPOV. This is what multiple editors have pointed out. No single editor owns an article (or "what actually happened"). This is why we find consensus together. Dbsseven ( talk) 15:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The blue-check means its a verified account, so the person is 100% who they claim to be. The question is - Is Ryan Sprout himself a reliable primary source? Dark Knight 2149 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, we have an underused facility in Mediawiki to list sites that are generally reliable sources and low risk for spam. The advantage is that if you are an IP or have a new account you have to do a capcha each time you add an external link, unless you link to a site on that list. Some suggestions of reliable sources we can add to the list are at MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#more_links but more input would be welcome and the regulars here are probably the best to give it. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Recently on the National Rifle Association article this text "The NRA was founded to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." It did not pursue a gun rights agenda until 1934, which places it behind the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for oldest civil rights organization." was inserted sourced to Salon and Tampa Bay Times here.
The issue seems to be the Salon source used here is stated as a re-post from Media Matters Blog section here with no changes at all to the Media Matters article. The Tampa Bay Times article here is part of their "The Buzz" section, which they list under their blog section here. Are those sources acceptable for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice or should they be attributed as the sources opinions? PackMecEng ( talk) 03:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Are any of these websites not considered usable as reliable sources? Crystalstar2007 recently added a number of citations to various articles and I can't tell if they're reliable. Some of them might be considered self-published. I've seen PopCrush removed for being unreliable before, but this could have been because it's not considered reliable for musical genres.
Jc86035 ( talk) 09:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a request at MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#From_the_Wikipedia_Library to add a list of sites from TWL partners to the whitelist. This would be appropriate if they are generally reliable and not a likely vandalism source. Will process in a week if no objections, feel free to discuss further here. — xaosflux Talk 01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I just found these 2 sources ( pakistantimes.com and pakistanherald.com) at a newly created article Aftab Iqbal. I tried but can't really find anything about their editorial oversight so could someone please confirm whether these sources are reliable or not. Pinging @ Saqib and Störm: for their opinion on the base of this discussion. Thank you – GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:37, 29 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 237 | Archive 238 | Archive 239 | Archive 240 | Archive 241 | → | Archive 245 |
Hi--For some reason unknown to me, a song I co-wrote that was featured the film To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar, and which is listed in the "Soudtrack" section on the movie's Wikipedia page, was marked "citation needed." The song is listed among those not included on the soundtrack release; however, the song is included in the film's credits (link below). Apparently this doesn't constitute a "reliable source." Can that really be possible? I can even tell you at what moment the song appears in the film--it's playing on the car radio when the three stars get picked up hitchhiking...Thanks for your help. The credit is at 1:07 on the video. [1] Senorartkat ( talk) 02:47, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Thank you! Do I just post the YouTube link as a footnote? Senorartkat ( talk) 14:57, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Honestly, I added my name to the Wikipedia page a long long time ago, but I never thought it would be thought of as a conflict of interest since the song is, in fact, in the movie. The "citation needed" seems to have appeared pretty recently, not sure why. I cited IMDb as a source not knowing it was user edited, and once again, unaware that it could be considered conflict of interest. Whatever; I'd appreciate your help very much. You are a fine human being, and I'm not stupid enough to lie about something that would be so easy to disprove. Senorartkat ( talk) 00:47, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Nah, I think it's good you're scrupulous. Thanks all around. Senorartkat ( talk) 03:07, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. Is Poets & Quants considered a reliable third-party source that we can cite please? It seems reliable to me but I am not sure who is behind the website. Please ping me when you reply. Thank you! Zigzig20s ( talk) 18:19, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello. I just wanted to know if a Wikileaks source can be mentioned as reference or reliable source. M A A Z T A L K 09:41, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
So, where is the line in the sand? Which opinion is the best opinion? I would love a closing verdict on this issue. M A A Z T A L K 13:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, I was looking at the Brie Larson article. On the opening lede, it has a link as a reference to Natalie Robehmed, who is on the editorial staff of Forbes. I know the sites subdomain is essentially a webhosting outfit, built with contributors but is it valid source. scope_creep ( talk) 17:56, 2 March 2018 (UTC)
Since November 2017, I've had a dispute with Administrator JzG about the use of a particular source in the article on Nicholas Georgescu-Roegen. On 19 November 2017, JzG stripped the article of a book by Italian physical chemist Enzo Tiezzi, [2] see this diff. The dispute remains unresolved by the time of writing, as JzG has so far declined to enter into a discussion of the substance to the argument, see my talk page for details on this.
Let me restate my most important point already made on my talk page: According to the prevailing WP content guideline on reliable sources, predatory publishing pertains only to low quality articles published in journals lacking a reliable peer review process. But Tiezzi's book is indeed a book, so the guideline obviously does not apply here.
Of general interest to other editors on this noticeboard is my concern that the ban on predatory publishers is too restrictive to be fair when books are boldly being stripped from WP articles whenever the publisher involved (in this case, WIT Press) is suspected of predatory publishing of articles. I would like some response from other editors on this issue, thank you.
References
References
End of post. Gaeanautes ( talk) 14:53, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
An editor is suggesting that Barnes Review is an acceptable source to comment on Walt Disney Companys's values without a third party source mentioning their criticism as significant. [5] If you've never heard of this source, try reading the second sentence of our article. (It was enough that after finding this I checked if the source was used anywhere else in wikipedia articles. It is, but all of the uses seem probably okay, fairly non contentious claims about people somehow involved in the magazine.) Assuming there is no dispute over the unsuitability of this source and I know this isn't really the purpose of this board, I'm hoping at a minimum people here will have some experience how to counsel an editor who believe such a source is acceptable since I'm at a loss and it doesn't seem to raise to the level for ANI of itself. I initially thought that maybe this editor just didn't realise what Barnes Review was, but the fact they initially added it [6], combined with a look at their edit history suggests to me they probably are aware. Nil Einne ( talk) 21:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
At Children in the Israeli–Palestinian conflict Giulio Meotti's article The silence of the West Ynet 22 February 2012 was quoted for the view:
Giulio Meotti has argued the opposite position – that antisemitism has become socially acceptable in Western media and that the world tolerates murder of Jewish children
This extraordinary hyperbole is quoted in the lead as though it were a representative view. Now Meotti was shown to be a serial plagiarist soon after that date, and Ynet dropped him almost immediately afterwards from its columns.
The evidence that the views he puts forth as his own are filched from googling other journalists was documented by Marc Tracy:-
He was also dropped as a contributor to Commentary that same year and in 2014 The Italian Informazione Correttas gay rights activist Angelo Pezzana, otherwise close to the ultra-right Israeli circles, fired him.(Andrea Mollica, Furiosa lite sui gay fra ultràs della destra filoisraeliana Gad Lerner.it, 29 January 2014.
An editor has restored Meotti's stuff saying he is quotable for his own views, but the evidence is, given he lifts material from all over the net, no one can say if those are his views or borrowed from other journalists. In any case he is a fringe voice, and in my view totally unacceptable for an encyclopedia. Nishidani ( talk) 11:13, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm refraining from following BLP by removing the three poor sources and anything not verified by the other two references in an attempt to give Lidiia Kondratieva a better understanding of WP:RS while trying to minimize escalating her personal dispute with me. (I realize the outdated press release might be used for basic historical information.)
What do others think of the three sources and how they are used? -- Ronz ( talk) 18:29, 4 March 2018 (UTC)
ApricotFoot ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
This user is creating lots of articles on table tennis players, many of which rely solely on this website as their only source. Obscure sports notability is not exactly an area in which I have a lot of interest, but this seems kind of shaky to me. Thoughts? Beeblebrox ( talk) 23:05, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
The articles are for gold, silver and bronze medallists at World Championships so I would not describe them as 'Obscure sports notablilty'. Granted that many only carry the one source but surely that is why they have been created as stubs for other users to add and improve them? ApricotFoot ( talk) 10:34, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Surely you cannot be serious, a bronze medal at a world championship in one of the worlds biggest participation sports! If you don't think that is notable then it begs the question as to whether every bronze medal for the vast majority of Olympics, Commonwealths, Europeans (non mainstream sports) should be deleted. Anyway as I said they are only stubs. I will add more citations from sports book collections that I have to help the issue, but it will take a couple of days. ApricotFoot ( talk) 22:40, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
I'm trying add citations for Donkey Kong Country#Audio, but I've had difficulty finding reliable sources to support its information. The difficulty, in my opinion, is because the soundtrack was published in 1994 and many of the physical sources which have documented information about it are now gone, and it's from a time before there was a large internet presence of online media documenting this kind of stuff. While I have a good idea that the two pieces of information that I'm trying to verify are correct: That the official name for the track is "DK Island Swing", not "DK Swing" as the Square Enix article names it, and that the album has "hidden" bonus tracks, it seems that the only source of information are online databases.
The most promising source that I can find is video game music database. While the site does rely on community-generated content, it requires registration, and edits are not submitted until they are reviewed by trusted editors. The about page is somewhat reasuring, though the only people connected with are online pseudonyms. While this is not the preferable source for this information, the information seems to be important information when discussing the soundtrack in the article, and I can find no better sources.
Basically, is this an acceptable use case, and if not, what should be done with the content?
Thanks, -- E to the Pi times i ( talk) 22:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)
On Tikun Olam blog page someone added a claim by the blogger about a source of his. The blog on its own isn’t considered RS but can it be in this case since it is about the blogger?
The person who is supposed to be the informant past away about two years ago do no BLP issue here. But he was a public figure and I would assume th reliability of the source is important. Change
Kigelim ( talk) 03:14, 27 February 2018 (UTC)
it does not involve claims about third partiesand possibly SELFPUB(4)
there is no reasonable doubt as to its authenticityas well - this should be excluded as long as it is sourced to Silverstein himself (whose blog is generally not a WP:RS - though I admit I read it regularly (in between of the crud, some 10%-15% of pieces actually have some information. Middleeast Eye is not a RS either, and in any event they have stated
The views expressed in this article belong to the author and do not necessarily reflect the editorial policy of Middle East Eye.making their RSness moot). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:48, 28 February 2018 (UTC)
Did or didn’t his informant break Israeli law by telling Silverstein the information? Absolutely! For your question, Silverstein uses whatever source to blackwash Israel. He even relays on comments on his blog as sources. The fact no one caught on this scoop of his means either he isn’t taken seriously or WP:BLP prevents me of completing the sentence. Kigelim ( talk) 16:37, 1 March 2018 (UTC)
A WP:SPA who has a WP:COI insists against WP:SPAM and WP:SOAP to insert his own work, which is apparently WP:SPS, at Metaphysics.
The text he entered is "* Ramakrishna Surathu (2018) You are God, Independently Published, ISBN 1977025641". Please chime in. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 10:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
Self published doesn't mean the information published is worthless, after all if it's selling on amazon. The whole book is centred at the "Being" and "Existence". Perhaps the author is new, perhaps the author has truly known him/her self. What the author says in the book is exactly what is popularised as Metaphysics. The author in the book gave a technique called "wintess", perhaps the reader of the book may benefit by knowing that metaphysics (concepts of Being / Existence) is not just a dull theory (without any practical applicability) and it can be practically proven as a result of execution of the method him/herself.
Thanks beforehand, Lidiia Kondratieva ( talk) 21:01, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
--22:13, 5 March 2018 (UTC)"...[Loesch's] questioning the conservative political credentials of commentators who were supporting Donald J. Trump at that juncture."[ "'Who The Hell Is This Chick?': Dana Loesch Goes Off On Trump Supporter Kayleigh McEnany". May 9, 2016. Retrieved March 5, 2018.
Or, just addressing me, for my pointing out, (as you yourself imply) that referencing Breitbart is a nonarguement here?-- Hodgdon's secret garden ( talk) 19:36, 7 March 2018 (UTC)You wrote: "Ah yes, Scott Baker, who prior to working for TheBlaze was a co-founder of Breitbart, and before that was a local news anchor. [...]"
Note: This was originally posted here on March 23 but received no response and became archived seven days later. I am positing it once again at a different time of day in hope of it receiving attention. Please remove this post if my re-adding it is disallowed or otherwise inappropriate. Thank you.
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 three 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: [10] [11] [12] [13]), 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 22:29, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
I'm currently reviewing the GA nomination for Nirvana (Inna album) and I'd like to ask for some more opinions regarding two sources: CelebMix and DirectLyrics. As I've pointed out to the nominee, CelebMix has no indication of editorial oversight and is largely written by volunteers: [14]. DirectLyrics reliability was brought up here in 2016, with two editors questioning whether it was reliable in general: see Archive 216. I'd consider both sources to be unreliable in general.
As the nominee has pointed out, however, the authors of the articles he has sourced are a cut above the rest from both sites. The CelebMix author cited, Jonathan Currinn, states he is a graduate of Staffordshire University and has written for several other minor publications [15]. The DirectLyrics author cited, Kevin Apaza, is the manager of the website and is a University of Roehampton graduate: [16]
Neither of the journalists are used to say anything that is controversial, libelous or overly-promotional. I have no reason to doubt their statements are accurate. But would you consider either of these journalists notable enough for general information added to a music-related article? I don't want to make a ruling on accepting or rejecting the sources without hearing from at least a couple people here. Thanks. Freikorp ( talk) 01:39, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
I am currently working on a draft for the Natina Reed article, and ran across this interview here with youknowigotsoul.com. I was wondering if this would be reliable enough for me to use in my draft? It is one of the few more extended interviews that I could find with Reed. Aoba47 ( talk) 07:22, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
There is an RFC which may be of interest to the members of this wikiproject Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#RFC_regarding_the_sexuality_of_David_Ogden_Stiers ResultingConstant ( talk) 21:52, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
TO AVOID FORUM SHOPPING AND DISCUSSION SPLITTING, PLEASE COMMENT AT THE ARTICLE OR BLP NOTICEBOARD MASH star Stiers died on March 4th. In 2009 the "gossip boy" wordpress blog published an "interview" with Stiers in which "Stiers" came out as gay. This contradicts an earlier (RS) interview in which he said he was not gay. The gossip boy interview has subsequently been picked up and cited in many sources including ABC and the NYT obit for Stiers (NYT cites ABC, ABC cites gossip boy). There has been long standing but contentious consensus to exclude this info based on the WP:GRAPEVINE argument, but with Stiers death, the issue has been reopened. The discussion could use additional eyes/voices from experienced editors Talk:David_Ogden_Stiers#gay_summary — Preceding unsigned comment added by ResultingConstant ( talk • contribs) 16:47, 5 March 2018 (UTC)
I have done about seventy of these for Chinese minor geography articles. This is the way I've been doing it recently. Seeking your thoughts and opinions. Please help me get as close into line with the standards of English Wikipedia as possible so I can do these in the right way.
(I'm still looking forward to any input you may have! Geographyinitiative ( talk) 11:49, 10 March 2018 (UTC))
Summary: Source 1 xianning.gov is directly from the local government- this type of website often includes typos on rarely used characters. I feel certain that it is a good source, but am I citing it correctly? Source 2 xzqh.org is from a secondary source which I feel is a reliable source on the administrative divisions of China- it is often used by other people in English wikipedia and on Baidu Baike. It often includes typos on rarely used characters. Is it really acceptable? The third source stats.gov.cn is the central government's lists of names and statistical numbers for administrative divisions; it often includes typos. 4 is another secondary source, less reliable but sometimes helpful. Having all four cited at once seems to me to me the best way to make sure that wikipedia is consulting all the relatively authoritative sources. There are definitely other sources, but I don't know about them and I hope you will tell me about them if they are out there. In essence, is there anything obviously out of line with my methodology, citations, or the statements I create based on looking at these sources?
1 Source: 4 sources [1] [2] [3] [4]
2 Article: /info/en/?search=Xianning
3 Content: Xianning has 1 district, 4 counties, 1 county-level city and 1 other area.
District:
Counties:
City:
Other Area:
References
咸宁市辖嘉鱼县、通城县、崇阳县、通山县、赤壁市、咸安区四县一市一区和一个高新技术产业园区,共设12个乡、51个镇、6个办事处,下辖1049个村民委员会、10145个村民小组。
2000年第五次全国人口普查,咸宁市总人口2700678人。其中:咸安区567598人,嘉鱼县358646人,通城县427867人,崇阳县456792人,通山县378849人,赤壁市510926人。 2004年末,咸宁市总面积10022平方千米,总人口约276.9万人。辖1个市辖区、4个县,代管1个县级市。共有6个街道、51个镇、12个乡,131个居委会、1034个村委会。
统计用区划代码 名称 421201000000 市辖区 421202000000 咸安区 421221000000 嘉鱼县 421222000000 通城县 421223000000 崇阳县 421224000000 通山县 421281000000 赤壁市
At Yugambeh people, two editors are removing Germaine Greer White Beech: The Rainforest Years A&C Black 2014 and the material sourced in it, while restoring Rory O’Connor, The Kombumerri:Aboriginal people of the Gold Coast, published by R. O'Connor, Brisbane 1997
The editors who want to remove Greer and put in O'Connor, User:BlackfullaLinguist and The Drover's Wife claim Greer is an 'idiot' unqualified to write on 'indigenous issues'. BlackfullaLinguist is also claiming that his ethnicity and that of O'Connor trumps any outside scholarship (there may well be also a WP:COI problem here, esp. since he tells us that he is editing Wikipedia on this topic in order to 'get the truth out about my people.')
I have no idea what the 'truth' is. All I know is that experts have remarked on considerable confusion in our sources, and, like Greer who cites them, mention these problems. People of Yugambeh descent are conflicted about many claims various descendants have made. Can third parties please tell me why O'Connor's inaccessible self-published book is RS, while Greer's is, I am told, RS only in so far as that might be 'rat shit'. Nishidani ( talk) 13:23, 9 March 2018 (UTC)
At what point is the fact that a reliable source quotes a Wordpress blog for a statement of fact give an imprimatur to the claim made in that blog? This is currently the gist of a dispute at Talk:David Ogden Stiers where prior discussions held the defunct "Gossip-boy" blog was not reliable, but which has now been quoted in reliable sources, sometimes with no attribution. (I rather figure that eliding attribution on a lengthy and exact quote does not make it into a "different source", by the way. What is does is show blatant plagiarism by the "reliable sources" which is now common). (The notice of the RfC above appears to give a notice sans information about the actual issues involved) Thanks. Collect ( talk) 17:46, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
Should books published by Books on Demand GmbH located in Norderstedt Germany, be considered a reliable source? A search shows hundreds of Wikipedia articles citing BOD publications as a source.
Both their website and the German article de:Books on Demand describe it as a Self-publishing platform. To my understanding, unless the author is already notable or trusted, this pretty much rules out such sources as references for most things other than themselves, per WP:SPS. Mathglot ( talk) 22:14, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
Dispute at Talk:Ophidiophobia#Indiana_Jones_BRRD,_if_anyone_is_interested if the sources used are reliable in context. More views welcome. Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 15:50, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The page for Jeremy Bates (American football) incorrectly identifies him as the Offensive Coordinator. He is listed on the official New York Jets website as the quarterbacks coach, a position he has held for about a year. On January 19, 2018 a piece was published in the New York Daily news that contained speculation that Bates would be named Offensive Coordinator for the Jets but no announcement has been forthcoming and no change has been made to the official website. There has been no verification of any kind by Bates or anyone connected with the Jets that he has been promoted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.45.58.128 ( talk) 01:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
I believe this is plagiarism, and Wikipedia should say
Please confirm or correct my understanding. Thanks! Carte Rouge ( talk) 13:43, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
We are currently in a heated discussion right now over the reliable sources added to Bullet Club member Gino Gambino and this user claims BLP and keeps reverting it so I was wondering if these independent sources are reliable [21]
[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan ( talk • contribs)
Here’s a source that another user have provided when added Gambino [24] — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheKinkdomMan ( talk • contribs)
Snooganssnoogans ( talk · contribs), Volunteer Marek ( talk · contribs), and myself are in a dispute over whether a working paper by a PhD student at York University meets our standards regarding reliable sources. The paper is from October 2015, never made it to publication, and apparently is only accessible today via Wayback Machine (an indication that the author herself abandoned it). The paper in question is here. Additionally, there is a media article based on (and explicitly referring to) this very same working paper, that Volunteer Marek thinks serves as an independent verification of the claim the original working paper was cited as source for.
In my opinion this does not meet our WP:RS standard for reliable sources. But as the dispute is bordering on an edit war now, I ask for a third opinion here. -- bender235 ( talk) 17:54, 12 March 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.
Source : Title=A Survey of Hinduism 3rd ed.| Author= Klaus Klostermaier | publisher=SUNY Press | isbn=978-0-7914-7082-4 | page=25 Article : Bhimbetka rock shelters Content : I am merely adding the opinion of Klaus Klostermaier about the significance of Bhimbetka Rock shelter paintings, and its not to validate any claim by me. It is only merely adding more valuable content to the article. This is the opinion of Klostermaier which infuriated above mentioned two wiki-users
"Nobody has as yet interpreted the religious significance of the prehistoric cave paintings at Bhīmbetka (from 100,000 BCE to 10,000 BCE), which were discovered only in 1967, and we do not know whether and how the people who created these are related to present-day populations of India. These show, amongst other objects, horses clearly readied for riding. According to the “Invasionists” horse breeding and horse riding were an innovations that the Aryans introduced to India after 1500 BCE.
I added a scholarly citation of Klaus Klostermaier to an article Bhimbetka rock shelters . He is a prominent German-Canadian scholar on Hinduism and Indian history and culture and has a PhD in "Ancient Indian History and Culture" from the University of Bombay in 1969.
Two wiki-users named User:D4iNa4 & User:Doug Weller are removing the above mentioned citation added by me.
One of them , User:Doug Weller, is specifying 3 reasons for this.
1. He is saying Klaus Klostermaier is not an archaeologist. So his opinion can't be included in this article.
But this is an article related to Bhimbetka rock shelters, and what is wrong in adding any scholarly ciatation related to this? why are these wiki-users insisting that only an archaeologist's opinions can be added to this article? Does this article has any speciality which other wiki-articles does not have?
2. He is saying Kalus Klosermaier is not a reliable source
Klaus has a phD in Indian History and culture. Isn't that reliable enough, to express his opinion? Please note that i am only adding more scholarly content related to Bhimbetka Cave Paintings, to the article and not trying to validate any claim.
3. He is saying the dating of Klaus as the cave painting being older than 10000 BCE is wrong.
But archelogical Survey of India in their publication has clearly stated that the cave painting in question here is of mesolithic era. (that is before 10000BCE) So Klaus is very correct in his dating.
Above all, why all this fuss about adding a citation by a scholar. Why these two users are so scared against the opinions of Klaus, is what i dont understand. WHat is wrong in adding an opinion by a scholar like Klaus? If they have any citation from any other scholar which criticize the opinion of Klaus, they can add it also. Nobody is prohibiting it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Banasura ( talk • contribs) 14:49, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
While attempting to add statements by Seth Rich's parents to the "Murder of Seth Rich" Talk page for eventual inclusion in the article, I was informed by an editor that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC
So I am now inquiring about an exception, since the Daily Mail has an exclusive video interview with Seth Rich's father in which he states (on camera):
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3741754/Father-murdered-DNC-staffer-reveals-son-join-Hillary-Clinton-presidential-campaign-punching-hole-ugly-rumor-Wikileaks-source.html (the video is embedded in the page, after some photos, and has a title "Seth Rich's father reveals son was joining Hillary campaign)
In the video, Seth Rich's father can be seen and simultaneously heard stating, "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later) "He had just found out that they wanted him."
So, it appears to me that the truthfulness of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, and the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence.
This inquiry about an exception to the "generally unreliable" vote at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC is separate from any ongoing discussion to possibly include the quote in the "Murder of Seth Rich" article. So far, documentation of the job offer there has been suppressed. At the very least, it should be added as a reference. StreetSign ( talk) 22:38, 10 March 2018 (UTC)
What do you mean "no one else reported it"? That is deliberately deceptive. I have already reported that CNN and WashingtonPost have reported that Seth Rich's father said that Seth Rich told him that he received a job offer from the Hillary Clinton presidential campaign. Many other sources have published it.
"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and continued "To those who sincerely want to get to the bottom of Seth’s murder, we don’t hold this against you."
and on CNN:
"Before Rich died, he had been offered a new job on Hillary Clinton's presidential campaign"
reference: https://www.cnn.com/2017/05/24/us/seth-rich-dnc-wikileaks-theories/index.html
Do you believe that all those sources were altered too? StreetSign ( talk) 02:20, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Speaking only to the context of whether or not the source can be used and not to content issues of undue weight, the source in question is Seth Rich's father, not the Daily Mail. It is a primary source to a recorded statement made by the father. As such, all due caution must be made when using the source and any interpretation of the source must be extremely limited. It's my opinion that its reasonably sources the statement "In an interview with the Daily Mail, Seth Rich's father said his son was..." and then the verbatim quote. LargelyRecyclable ( talk) 04:49, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
@Doug Weller I have no interest in DM at all. And I have no interest in conspiracy theories. I did notice that the Seth Rich article did not contain any mention of the job offer from the Hillary Clinton campaign, even though his father spoke about it on more than one occasion with reporters, and considered it significant in some way. I posted on the Seth Rich Talk page, and was immediately accused of supporting conspiracy theories. Someone eventually even deleted my posts and those of everyone who responded. At no time did I change the actual Seth Rich article. I was informed that "The Daily Mail is not an acceptable source on Wikipedia." Some research revealed this: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard&oldid=764880426#Daily_Mail_RfC
And after reading it I concluded that an exception was a possibility. Once again, I don't care about DM at all. I did not even know DM existed. The video itself is clearly reliable, contrary to the claim by MjolnirPants above. The video, as pointed out in another reply above, a Primary source, so it should not be excluded.
I do understand that editors do not want to promote a conspiracy theory. Neither do I. But it does not seem right to suppress the job offer on that basis. There are many examples on WP, notably the Lee Oswald article as one example, where some facts are seized upon by conspiracy theorists, but they belong in the article anyway, because they are facts that contribute to understanding the background of the story. I don't think that we want to engage in anything equivalent to editing Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin. Seth Rich's father made these statements. They have been reported. They have been deliberately excluded from the Seth Rich article, using a variety of weak excuses. The authentic nature of the video is indisputable, the video is not available from another source, the father of Seth Rich describes the job offer and the murder in the same sentence, and it is independently supported by similar statements made by the father to WashingtonPost.
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." (and then later in the video) "He had just found out that they wanted him." StreetSign ( talk) 20:25, 11 March 2018 (UTC)
Seth Rich's father did not consider it trivial. He disclosed it in separate interviews. The documented quotes are
"On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign."
"He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered."
"He had just found out that they wanted him."
I don't see you complaining that the bike rack (already in the article) is trivial. StreetSign ( talk) 00:42, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
We can easily differentiate between a documented, published fact and a conspiracy theory. The fact belongs in the article. The conspiracy theories do not. Attempting to repeatedly suppress the fact with obstructive tactics is wrong. StreetSign ( talk) 16:13, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
Yes. That does describe the situation more accurately than the excuses that were given by other people. We have documented proof (including a video, and published accounts on CNN and WashingtonPost) that Seth Rich's father said "On the day he was murdered, Seth was excited about a new job he had been offered on Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign." and "He had just been asked to join the Clinton campaign, four days before he was murdered." but there are a relatively few editors who have taken control of the article and will not permit it to be in writing on Wikipedia. They label anyone who wants to publish the fact a "conspiracy theorist". They will eventually be overruled. They will not be able to keep Nikolai Yezhov out of the photo with Stalin forever. /info/en/?search=Censorship_of_images_in_the_Soviet_Union#Censorship_of_historical_photographs StreetSign ( talk) 17:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
So I am a little unclear about whether the Seamount Catalog at Earth.ref is a reliable source. There are some parts of the website that suggest it's usergenerated, others which suggest it is not. I am only interested in the coordinates for individual seamounts (such as the ones here), which I need for the article I am drafting at User:Jo-Jo Eumerus/Musicians Seamounts - the current coordinates are too approximate/rounded for my liking. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 21:38, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
As far as I can tell, the reliability of the website On the Issues has never been addressed here. I see this website used as a source on political biographies fairly often, and I'd like to get community input on its reliability. A specific example is at Don Bacon (general). Another example is Jackie Walorski. It seems like On the Issues aggregates information on political stances from a variety of sources--candidate websites, speeches, newspaper articles, candidate questionnaires, Vote Smart surveys, etc. The reliability of the information they gather is probably generally good, although not necessarily. My main issue with whether or not we should source from it is one of cherrypicking. You can see that the website covers a lot of issues, and it's typical on a political biography to see one or two or three issues picked from this source and highlighted. My question is, how are we deciding which issues to highlight? I think a reasonable answer would be that we should highlight issues that are also covered by other reliable, secondary sources--so perhaps this is more an issue of due weight. Although it could be that On the Issues isn't reliable at all, since their editorial process is unclear. I apologize if this is the wrong venue to host this discussion, but I think it would be really useful to get some general guidance on this. Thanks in advance. Marquardtika ( talk) 03:20, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
Can this Buzzfeed News article [26] be used as a source for the following text?:
Another editor disputes that Buzzfeed News is WP:RS and insists that this piece in particular is an "opinion article". Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 12:18, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
The Wilks information can also be sources to Mother Jones at https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2018/03/inside-right-wing-youtube-turning-millennials-conservative-prageru-video-dennis-prager/ through https://rewire.news/article/2015/04/30/conservatives-spend-millions-proselytizing-school-children/ , and allegedly (I'm not going to do the work) through the underlying documents (990s, Return of Organization Exempt From Income Tax) which are filed publicly by the Heavenly Father’s Foundation and the Thirteen Foundation. Carte Rouge ( talk) 13:53, 16 March 2018 (UTC)
This looks much like a solid news article. Note that "told BuzzFeed News" is repeated eleven times. Buzzfeed news articles are usually okay and quickly skimming through this article I saw nothing alarming.
But the sentence "Much of PragerU's early funding came from the fracking billionaire Wilks brothers."
is clearly problematic because it is pulled from the source. The sentence must be inside quotation marks, and should be
attributed in the text in order to
avoid plagiarism. ASAP.
Politrukki (
talk) 19:44, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Partly a NPOV issue, this has RS implications as well. At present we use Marek Jan Chodakiewicz's writings as a source in over 100 articles (and we might have attributed views (sourced via other sources) beyond that) - source search. In particular I would like to point out the following illustrative examples:
The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968.(beyond the lack of context of 1968, most other sources say Piotr Śmietański
Its composition is said to be 40 percent Ukrainian, 5 percent Belarusian, 5 percent Polish, and 50 percent Polesian. I'll note that the Russian Wikipedia (and sourcing there) disagrees with this (the existence of Polesian itself seems to be contested by some).
The majority of the shooting victims were ethnically Polish,
It is also the largest killing of ethnic Poles in history, outside any armed conflict.in the lede. He is also used attributed to refer to this as a genocide.
In October 1943, 600 Jewish and Russian prisoners attempted an escape at the Sobibór extermination camp. About 60 survived and joined the Belarusian partisans. In Eastern Europe, many Jews joined the ranks of the Soviet partisans: throughout the war, they faced antisemitism and discrimination from the Soviets and some Jewish partisans were killed, but over time, many of the Jewish partisan groups were absorbed into the command structure of the much larger Soviet partisan movement.
Historian Marek Jan Chodakiewicz estimates that in the first years after the war, the Jewish denunciations and direct involvement in the pro-Soviet wave of terror, resulted in the killing of approximately 3,500 to 6,500 non-Jewish Poles including members of the Home Army and National Armed Forces.in contrast to
In "After the Holocaust," Chodakiewicz states: "In sum, probably a minimum of 400 and a maximum of 700 Jews and persons of Jewish origin perished in Poland from July 1944 to January 1947.".... unattributed use:
Many Jews did not wish to remain where their previously large communities in Poland had been decimated by the German occupation; many fled the imposition of the Soviet backed political regime which persecuted the bourgeoisie and religion, including Judaism; many aimed to pursue the Zionist objectives in Palestine..
Peasants who broke the boycott were beaten; Jews offering their services in the surrounding villages were also physically attacked.and a few others.
As to why such use might be troubling, particularly without context - Marek Jan Chodakiewicz has been called out by the Southern Poverty Law Center in 2009 and in 2017, as well by Never Again Poland and Hope not Hate 2017 Hope Not Hate on Chodakiewicz. Chodakiewicz's activities have been criticized on two separate fronts:
References
While mentioned briefly in previous RSN discussions (e.g. here in the context of whether citing an unreliable source would make it reliable), Chodakiewicz has not been discussed as a source previously here to the best of my knowledge. What would be the appropriate use of Chodakiewicz on the English Wikipedia? Icewhiz ( talk) 09:53, 19 March 2018 (UTC) Corrected Smietanski's date of death.(per [36], [37], [38]). Icewhiz ( talk) 08:15, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 16:51, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
That seemed particularly obvious in July 2008, when he wrote in Najwyzszy Czas! about then-presidential candidate Barack Obama, who he claimed was at one time a Muslim, a radical, and a friend and protégé of communists whose mother was a "feminist, social-liberal, hippie and a fan of F.D. Roosevelt."[40],
In January of 2017, he penned a piece lamenting what he called the “ongoing genocide against Whites” in South Africa. The term “white genocide” is a common white nationalist trope, with many pointing to South Africa and falsely claiming that white people are systematically massacred by people of color.[41]. Icewhiz ( talk) 16:58, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
You were already informed that Chodkiewicz states there is no genocide in South Africa. His article states clearly that there is no genocide. Why are you repeating a false claim that can be easily confirmed to be false by quoting what he writes? -- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
As to the beginning of the statement by Icewhiz, it seems that a large part of it is strange opposition to describing Soviet crimes and atrocities, I am afraid that seems to indicate a very strong POV. It is widely known that Soviets engaged in ethnic cleansing and genocide against Polish population. Sourcing information about this is not something controversial as Icewhiz alledged.Is Icewhiz disputing that NKVD and Soviets conducted ethnic genocide against Poles?-- MyMoloboaccount ( talk) 17:02, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Any historian who writes about historical times such as these yet never raises anyone else's hackles must be a very boring and lazy historian. It can be said that Chodkiewicz's writing upsets quite a few people, but that is not by itself a reason to exclude him. The opinion of organizations like SPLC that are not historical experts is especially irrelevant (but with due care could be mentioned in the historian's own article). Where Chodkiewicz disagrees with other experts about a historical event, we can give both opinions in conformity with NPOV. Zero talk 23:48, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
The firing squad consisted of a single man, the notorious Piotr Śmietański, nicknamed by the prisoners the "Butcher of the Mokotow Prison." Piotr Smietanski is believed to have emigrated to Israel in 1968.. And also on: Piotr Śmietański
According to Chodakiewicz, he emigrated from Poland in 1968 to Israel, but other historians disagree.. That the text presently main-space on enwiki - which is currently supported by this inline citation. I'll note that the "Ciekawe na przykład jak potoczyły się losy takich ludzi, jak kat Mokotowa Piotr Śmietański?" question appears in a new paragraph immediately after
Około 20 tysięcy osób pochodzenia żydowskiego zdecydowało się na wyjazd za granicę. Nie ma jeszcze szczegółowych badań profilu tej grupy, ale wydaje się, że wielu z nich to zwykli ludzie. Mała część marcowej emigracji to SB-becy: kilkaset osób związanych było z aparatem terroru.(20,000 people of Jewish origin decided to go abroad ... Most ordinary, a few hundred associated with SB's terror apparatus). The question would seem to be tied to the immediately preceding passage - however I agree this is inappropriate use of the source. Icewhiz ( talk) 11:08, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
It may be a Fleet Street paper, but its website has become a mecca for conspiracy craziness:
Also here; simply typing the name of a pseudoscience conspiracy theory into Google gets three results from the Express. Serendi pod ous 08:30, 12 March 2018 (UTC)
The issue is whether thearda.com is a reliable source? It's moot. Several definitely reliable sources will also provide similar definitions. Here is Oxford Dictionaries: faith healing; American Heritage Dictionary faith healing. These dictionaries do not say "especially Christian" or specifically refer to laying on hands. Are they necessary to your purposes? In my search, I also found an article that appeared in Science, which is the second-most prestigious science journal in the anglosphere: "The Science of Faith Healing" Darkfrog24 ( talk) 22:00, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
To anyone who might be interested, there is an open request for comments which relates to reliable sources and categorising faith healing as a pseudoscience that people might like to visit. This follows a previous request for comments on the same issue that was held some time ago.-- Literaturegeek | T@1k? 10:31, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
"thearda.com" is simply the website of the Association of Religion Data Archives (ARDA). They are an online information source, collecting data about American and international religion. "The archive now includes both American and international collections as well as features for educators, journalists, religious congregations, and researchers." It is not an independent organization. It is currently co-funded and effectively owned by:
I would like to know if it can be reliable to use a Twitter account as a source for daily ratings. For example here was previously discussed about this, they did not give me an exact answer. An article where the source is used is Por amar sin ley among others. The Twitter account is Produ. It's from a company that publishes content about series and more. In fact, the account is official. It is verified. Your website is this, but there are always problems to be able to navigate in it.-- Philip J Fry / talk 00:36, 20 March 2018 (UTC)
Is automobilesreview.com a reliable source? I recently noticed an editor whose behavior appears to be that of a spammer ( Jody 99) adding links to this website. This raised my suspicions. Although Jody 99 has been reverted, there are multiple other uses of automobilesreview.com as a reference (not as a result of any obvious spamming, as far as I can tell). I'm not familiar enough with this subject area to know if this is an acceptable source to use as a reference of automobile news or not. Deli nk ( talk) 13:09, 23 March 2018 (UTC)
http://timepass.com.pk/sana-javed-biography-date-of-birth-age-height-weight-education-affair-scandal-drama-movie/ Plum3600 ( talk) 05:24, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
I am hoping to determine whether or not musicinafrica.net is a reliable, verifiable source. Recently I have been involved at Mwasiti hoping to clean the article in the aftermath of a likely undisclosed paid editing case per [47]. The article is now at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mwasiti, and the discussion seems to be moving towards keep, though I support deletion. Most of the keep arguments center around the WP:NMUSIC policy that states that an artist with that "Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart". However, the only source that makes such a claim about Mwasiti is [48] her profile on musicinafrica.net. I am concerned about the verifiablity of this site, as I have not been able to find further evidence of this claim anywhere else (with the exception of Wikipedia mirrors), and several of the other claims made by musicinafrica.net I was also not able to verify. I am also concerned about the disclaimer found at the bottom of the profile I cited, which reads "Disclaimer: Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes. If any track or video embedded on this platform violates any copyrights please inform us immediately and we will take it down. Please read our Terms of Use for more." These terms of use [49] and a descriptions page found on the website of the company that owns musicinafrica [50] show that the content on the website is user-generated, i.e created by accounts people have made, a major concern given that an editor on Wikipedia was paid to create an article of Mwasiti and could have planted information that would make the article subject notable per our guidelines. I believe all of the above calls into question the verifiability of the website and its content.-- SamHolt6 ( talk) 14:34, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
On its masthead WikiTRIBUNE self-identifies as WikiTRIBUNEPILOT
On its subscriptions page, founder Jimmy Wales writes, "We are launching … We are a tiny operation today with big ambitions for the future. Your support will help us to improve the technology and hire more journalists."
At its Help & FAQs page, the introduction begins, "Since we launched the pilot site…."
Clearly, WikiTRIBUNE remains a tiny pilot site still in launch phase, with an admitted deficit in technology and journalists.
My question therefore is: Does WikiTRIBUNE qualify as a WP:RELIABLE source?
WP:QUESTIONABLE cautions us, "Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires."
In my opinion, given its startup nature, limited resources, and unproven track record, WikiTRIBUNE should not be cited by editors within Wikipedia articles. We could proactively avoid disputed references by expressing a consensus to that effect. KalHolmann ( talk) 17:24, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
In the case at hand, the "article" is written by one named and six unnamed contributors (that is, unnamed at the top of the story, and whose "names" do not indicate reportorial or journalistic expertise), and is constantly changeable. A source which can be changed at any moment, by unnamed persons, is clearly never a "reliable source" any more than Wikipedia is. The "comments" page has an interesting comment by a person who asks "I think an interesting story would be whether a US citizen would be breaking the law by buying this. ..." This clearly suggests that a person in some presumed control of the source used is specifically asking that his point of view or question be treated in the article. Sorry, but I fear I consider WT to not yet meet WP:RS rules. Collect ( talk) 18:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Estcoin appears also to have major copyvio problems, alas. Collect ( talk) 19:21, 19 March 2018 (UTC)
Is chartmasters.org a reliable source. I've been using it as a source on List of best-selling albums, List of best-selling albums of the 2000s (century), List of best-selling singles, etc. I'm now having second thoughts and am looking for guidance.
Richard Hendricks ( talk) 18:25, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Sorry for bringing this here. Text has been removed from articles Spectre_(security_vulnerability) and Advanced Micro Devices which is widely covered by RS, such as Forbes, CNBC, CNN, and numerous tech sites. At Talk:Spectre_(security_vulnerability)#Reversion_of_AMD_text_on_Spectre, editor @ Dbsseven: is insisting that another source disputes the text. That source is a tweet from someone the editor claims is an expert. My question, is this tweet [52] a reliable source? Apologies if I left anything pertinent out. O3000 ( talk) 18:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Ryan Shrout is the founder and lead analyst at Shrout Researchand the owner of PC Perspective.. But, Ryan Shrout, Shrout Research, and PC Perspective all appear to be missing from WP. If he's an RS, you'd think there would be something. O3000 ( talk) 19:24, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
disingenuous, please let's keep this civil. O3000 ( talk) 19:16, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Advanced Micro Devices Inc said on Thursday its microprocessors are susceptible to both variants of the Spectre security flaw, days after saying its risk for one of them was “near zero”.How can you think that means there was no change in position? The same type of wording can be found in source after source. It’s why the markets were in turmoil. The two sentence tweet you want to use alludes to all the sources being wrong. O3000 ( talk) 19:53, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
This appears to have gotten off topic. My point to include a statement saying "Some sources said X, while AMD disagreed saying Y" can be well supported by multiple RS for both points. I believe this to be fair prose to build consensus around. 19:52, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
I would avoid using a Tweet by itself for a controversial statement, but RSes noticing a tweet would then be reasonable to point to and/or quote the tweet if it is considered relevant. This is even the case if the tweet is from a verified Twitter user and a known expert in said field; it's better to have RSes tell us why something is important when it comes off social media then make that judgement ourselves. Something uncontroversial, that's less a problem. -- Masem ( t) 20:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
someis weasely and misleading. "AMD originally stated that vulnerability to one of the two Spectre variants had not been demonstrated on AMD processors, claiming it posed "near zero risk of exploitation" due to differences in AMD architecture. However, AMD later stated that their processors were affected by both variants of Spectre. AMD denied that there was any change in their position." O3000 ( talk) 21:01, 21 March 2018 (UTC)
Well, obviously a source that didn't update isn't relevant. Any source that actually followed the story would have updated. Not sure what you're looking at. The top financial and tech sites all used words that meant change, usually in more stronger terms. O3000 ( talk) 00:01, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
The sources clearly show a change in AMD’s position. WP does not sweep news under the rug:
The old text is an incomplete synthesis of the facts from RS, and therefore not NPOV. This is what multiple editors have pointed out. No single editor owns an article (or "what actually happened"). This is why we find consensus together. Dbsseven ( talk) 15:07, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
The blue-check means its a verified account, so the person is 100% who they claim to be. The question is - Is Ryan Sprout himself a reliable primary source? Dark Knight 2149 00:08, 22 March 2018 (UTC)
Hi, we have an underused facility in Mediawiki to list sites that are generally reliable sources and low risk for spam. The advantage is that if you are an IP or have a new account you have to do a capcha each time you add an external link, unless you link to a site on that list. Some suggestions of reliable sources we can add to the list are at MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#more_links but more input would be welcome and the regulars here are probably the best to give it. Ϣere SpielChequers 20:22, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Recently on the National Rifle Association article this text "The NRA was founded to "promote and encourage rifle shooting on a scientific basis." It did not pursue a gun rights agenda until 1934, which places it behind the National Association for the Deaf (NAD) and the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP) for oldest civil rights organization." was inserted sourced to Salon and Tampa Bay Times here.
The issue seems to be the Salon source used here is stated as a re-post from Media Matters Blog section here with no changes at all to the Media Matters article. The Tampa Bay Times article here is part of their "The Buzz" section, which they list under their blog section here. Are those sources acceptable for statements of fact in Wikipedia's voice or should they be attributed as the sources opinions? PackMecEng ( talk) 03:08, 26 March 2018 (UTC)
Are any of these websites not considered usable as reliable sources? Crystalstar2007 recently added a number of citations to various articles and I can't tell if they're reliable. Some of them might be considered self-published. I've seen PopCrush removed for being unreliable before, but this could have been because it's not considered reliable for musical genres.
Jc86035 ( talk) 09:53, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
There is a request at MediaWiki_talk:Captcha-addurl-whitelist#From_the_Wikipedia_Library to add a list of sites from TWL partners to the whitelist. This would be appropriate if they are generally reliable and not a likely vandalism source. Will process in a week if no objections, feel free to discuss further here. — xaosflux Talk 01:50, 30 March 2018 (UTC)
Hello everyone, I just found these 2 sources ( pakistantimes.com and pakistanherald.com) at a newly created article Aftab Iqbal. I tried but can't really find anything about their editorial oversight so could someone please confirm whether these sources are reliable or not. Pinging @ Saqib and Störm: for their opinion on the base of this discussion. Thank you – GSS ( talk| c| em) 18:37, 29 March 2018 (UTC)