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 260 | Archive 261 | Archive 262 | Archive 263 | Archive 264 | Archive 265 | → | Archive 270 |
Is Timeline a reliable source? I am considering adding the following information to the Xennials article:
[Xennials] represent a small population among a time period of record-low birth rate in America. There were roughly 25.1 million people born in the U.S. between 1978 and 1984, representing only 36% of all Gen X births, or in 1984, merely 10.6% of the entire American population. (Multiple factors contributed to lower birth rates at this time, including more women entering the workforce, the oil crisis, higher crime rates, and a shaky economy.) On the other hand, beginning in 1977, Xennials mark the beginning of an upswing in birth rate, at 15.1%, compared to Gen X’s low point, a 14.6% birth rate in 1975 and 1976, respectively. [1]
-- Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the March 14 HuffPost ( RSP entry) article "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages" reliable for claims related to paid editing in Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and other affected articles?
The HuffPost article was written by Ashley Feinberg, who is a "Senior Reporter" and not a "Contributor". This was also covered in this month's issue of The Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/In the media § Declared paid editing.
I'm submitting this inquiry in response to
BC1278's request in
Special:Diff/888253168 for "an official consensus as to whether this article is or is not a reliable source for alleging paid editing impropriety"
at
WP:AN § HuffPost article on WP COI editing.
BC1278 is the paid editor (Ed Sussman) mentioned in the HuffPost article. —
Newslinger
talk 17:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"This article is wholly unreliable"at Special:Diff/890400952 and argued that a Wikipedia discussion
"found it to be an unreliable source"in Special:Diff/888250126. This noticeboard is the correct venue to discuss a source's reliability, especially when contested on article talk pages.
"unprecedented scenario"and said:
"when the content perspective holds that an RS is an RS, yet the administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong, it creates an incredibly uncomfortable scenario. There's no guidebook on how to deal with this". If it's impossible for editors to discuss just the source and its content, then please defer to the article talk pages and WP:AN § HuffPost article on WP COI editing, and ignore this discussion. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Two more articles where it's appeared. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
So have admins looked into this and determined that no paid editing occurred? Slatersteven ( talk) 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies.Swarm— Sting · Hive 🐝🐝🐝 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
"whitewash", are there any factual errors in the article? The words "whitewash", "bludgeon", and "canvass" are not used in the article's body. I understand the article characterizes some of Sussman's actions negatively, even when they are compliant with Wikipedia's policies. As the article does not claim that Sussman violated any policies, I interpret the article as a critical opinion of the types of edits that are allowed by Wikipedia's policies, and not a personal allegation. Sussman's edits are presented as a case study. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
"The administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong... Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism."BC1278 ( talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I have previously been advised regarding Harry Scott Gibbons that he is not a reliable author, on a different Talk page, although he is one of the most authoritative figures on the subject of the attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus, I have thus taken the liberty to include him and the previous Talk page thread here for discussion.
Comments on Harry Scott Gibbons copied from
Talk:Fazıl Küçük
|
---|
|
I can see a number of "issues" being cited, but there are two main ones here as to why Harry Scott Gibbons is not a reliable source, as far as I'm understanding: 1) any accounts of the events that cite him are, by their support of the same facts as also documented and cited by Gibbons himself, discountable as Turkish Cypriot-bias? and 2) he does not give a "readable account", but is very "one-sided" in his support for things as they were documented by international media, official accounts from the British government and then-some at the time?
Just to clarify something here. Harry Scott Gibbons is a journalist. He served in the Middle East, Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the United States, and is the author of multiple works including books and articles, who I can right off say have been published by Charles Bravos/Savannah Koch/the Journal of International Affairs and then-some, without getting into deep-research about it.
I am to understand that we judge sources by what they are, not what they say? And Harry Scott Gibbons IS authoritative on the subject he discusses. He is a third-party to the events he discusses. He himself cites very authoritative accounts of the events he discusses. He is well cited by others touching on the subject he discusses. He offers very readable accounts of the events he discusses. His works should not therefore simply be discarded as unreadable, one-sided, Turkish Cypriot-bias, or simply his opinions.
Pierre Oberling, the author of "The Road to Bellapais", typically refers to him as he did in reference to "Peace Without Honour" on P.89 of his book: "This unfortunately much-neglected work by a British journalist in Cyprus contains the most detailed and reliable account of the 1963-1964 crisis thus published".Oberling, Pierre (1982). The Road to Bellapais: The Turkish Cypriot Exodus to Northern Cypress (East European Monographs, No. 125). Social Science Monographs. p. 89. ISBN 0880330007. Citations are made throughout this book with the permission of Gibbons.
The UK Houses of Parliament recognise and concede to the authoritativeness of Gibbons and his work by citing his work as the "well documented" evidence of what they argue the UK is already very well aware of regarding Cyprus.
"CYPRUS - GENOCIDE OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS, EDM #276, Tabled 31 January 2001, 2000-01 Session". That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the attempted genocide committed against the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriot militia in 1963-64, 1967 and 1974, well documented in 'The Genocide Files' by Harry Scott-Gibbons and in official British documents and newspaper reports at the time; considers that since those massacres of Turkish Cypriots were committed by Greek Cypriot forces pursuant to a written plan, 'the Akritas Plan', Articles 2(a) (b) and (c) of the UN Genocide Convention are clearly satisfied; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action to bring to justice persons responsible who are still alive and living in southern Cyprus.
By raising this I'd also like to clarify whether referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source would actually be veiled attempts to undermine any contribution to Wikipedia that allows for the inclusion of information that may be "disagreeable" by pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot pushers?
I'm providing three of Gibbons' works here, for reference:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Thanks in advance.
Nargothronde ( talk) 04:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
By raising this I'd also like to clarify whether referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source would actually be veiled attempts to undermine any contribution to Wikipedia that allows for the inclusion of information that may be "disagreeable" by pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot pushers?As the editor who has been "referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source", I resent the thinly veiled insinuation about my possible motives. I have asked Nargothronde to redact it, but they have not been editing since I made the request, so I feel I have to comment before the thread is closed.
This is an attempt to rephrase the problem raised in the section "Harry Scott Gibbons" above. Are the given sources reliable for adding this sentence to List of ethnic cleansing campaigns?
There was an ethnic cleansing of the
Turkish Cypriot population in
Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots in 1963–74, before, during and after the
Turkish Peace Operation.
In 1963-64, and again in 1967, the Greek Cypriots, with Greek military assistance, raided isolated Turkish villages and attacked the Turkish Cypriot quarters of the towns, pushing the Turkish Cypriots into even more densely populated enclaves... the division of Cyprus into two ethnically homogeneous, self-governing states was not achieved by the Turkish armed intervention of 1974 but by the Greek Cypriots in their campaign of aggression against the Turkish Cypriot community during the previous decade...
... armed attacks on Turkish Cypriot civilians in December 1963 by re-armed Greek Cypriot police and irregulars from the banned EOKA movement... military assaults on Turkish Cypriots in 1967 were all too vivid illustrations of what mob rule could bring about... The elaborate plan codenamed Iphestos 1974 [volcano], which was captured with other documents of the Greek Cypriot National Guard in the weeks following the coup, contained the specifics of the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots, up to the exact location as to where to bury their corpses.23 The raging attacks on Turkish Cypriots in summer 1974 were all the necessary proof of the vulnerability of the Turkish Cypriot population in the face of extremists' control over the island... The provisions of the First Geneva Conference were immediately violated by Greek and Greek Cypriot forces, who continued to attack and put under siege Turkish Cypriots residing outside the protective umbrella of the Turkish armed forces... As the (Second Geneva Conference) talks were going on, the occupation and siege of Turkish enclaves in the Greek sector of the island continued; the situation in the regions of Serdarlı and Nicosia were particularly disturbing...
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)... the Greek fixation with Enosis-union with Greece-led to a one-sided war against the Turks and the brutal massacres of their men, women and children...
Greek actions seemed so haphazard that although it quickly became obvious the attack on the Turks was premeditated, the extent of the planning was not fully discovered until April 1966, when a Greek Cypriot newspaper, Patris, gave details of what has become known as the Akritas Plan. This was the first exercise in ethnic cleansing - racial extermination or genocide, as I prefer to call it - the Makarios government undertook...
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)Source #5 has no quotation and no external link, but its inclusion seems to be based on this source:
Newspapers at the time reported the forceful exodus of the Turkish Cypriots from their homes in the days and weeks that followed... threats, shootings and attempts of arson were committed against the Turkish Cypriots to force them out of their homes... Research produced by Canadian scholar Richard Patrick in the 1970s is considered among the most authoritative accounts of the period... Patrick argued that most Turkish Cypriots moved only after Turkish Cypriots had been killed, abducted or harassed by Greek Cypriots within their village or quarter... Costas M Constantinou, professor of international relations at the University of Cyprus, believes the segregation that followed the forceful movement of the Turkish Cypriots into enclaves in 1963-64 had tremendous implications... The 'Akritas' plan... stipulated an organised attack on Turkish Cypriots should they show signs of resistance to the measures, stating: "In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside intervention would be either justified or possible."... Political commentator and columnist Loucas Charalambous recalls how preparations for an armed conflict were underway long before December 1963. Charalambous personally witnessed military exercises taking place by paramilitaries months prior to the outbreak of hostilities.
Thank you! -- T*U ( talk) 13:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It has been asserted that here was an ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriot population in Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots in 1963–74, before, during and after the Turkish Peace Operation.Slatersteven ( talk) 13:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It has been asserted that here was a campaign of aggression and violence aimed at the [Turkish people. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the Fred Rogers article include a paragraph like this?
Rogers' friend William Hirsch told biographer Maxwell King that Rogers said he was "smack in the middle" of the sexuality scale and found both men and women attractive.
the first full-length biography of Fred Rogersand it says it is
Based on original interviews, oral histories, and archival documents.
In a conversation with one one of his friends, the openly gay Dr. William Hirsch, Fred Rogers himself concluded that if sexuality was measured on a scale of one to ten: "Well, you know, I must be right smack in the middle. Because I have found women attractive, and I have found men attractive."31(Page 208.) The book's footnote says:
31. Hirsch, William. Personal Interview. 7 November 2011. Audio.(Page 379.) Elsewhere the book describes Hirsch as a
close family friendof the Rogers' (page 346).
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Matters such as "sexuality" which are based on conjecture and opinions of a single person are, in fact, weak to begin with. As such, use in Wikipedia articles is imp[roper to begin with, as otherwise huge numbers of people would be labelled "bisexual" buy Wikipedia which is actually an affront to the LGBTQ community to begin with. It is labeling of people' which is one major issue, so unless there is self-identification, we avoid it. The nook neither states nor even implies how Rogers viewed himself. Collect ( talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.Being bisexual is neither wrong nor illegal.) WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
So... do we recommend removing the statement from the article as being UNDUE? Blueboar ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I recently came across a case at DRV where it was being argued that two sources (both admitted to be reliable and in-depth) were not independent because both journals were under the same ownership. The cited policy was GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. In my opinion, this was not intended to rule out two different articles written by two different authors in two different journals on two different dates. I would like to establish where the consenssus lies on this. Spinning Spark 00:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
— Newslinger talk 00:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Biography Jrank reliable? I'm thinking no, as its own sources are unclear ... ? Tacyarg ( talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
"Copyright © 2019 Net Industries and its Licensors") implies that the content is licensed, they do not provide details. — Newslinger talk 17:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The materials used and displayed on this website, including but not limited to text, photographs, graphics, illustrations and artwork, video, music and sound, and names, logos, trademarks, service marks, and copyright are the property of their respective owners. <some text omitted> The display of third party trademarks, service marks or copyright on this website does not imply that a license of any kind has been granted.[1] furthermore looks like a CYA on copyright status. As far as RS goes, if they're just re-linking Gale pubs, it is probably better to link directly to the originals in references. Crow Caw 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
More I look, worse it gets. These domains should be blacklisted before problem gets too much worse. Links are in 100s of articles on enwiki. Not just Gale but other copyright sources. -- Green C 04:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
References
There's a newish user who would like to help improve the article of this (comedy group?) but I know zero about reliability of Japanese sources. I'm not finding Natalie (website) in the archives/perennial sources, but since it's Japanese that might not mean anything. They're asking about the reliability for showing notability in particular. Can anyone help? I've been discussing with them at User talk:FreshUdon -- valereee ( talk) 12:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Whereas a search of the archives yields a number of discussiosn on the subject, these look inconclusive largely because people mix up the un-related subject of newspaper obituaries with paid, commercial obits. I hope we are all clear that if the news page of the New York Times publishes your obituary, that is a news article from a generally accepted WP:RS. This RfC is not about that, however. This RfC is about paid obit such as:
I propose that these are not WP:RS. On the contrary, obituaries published by funeral homes are the same as an advertisement; the only difference from a product advertisement in a glossy magazine being that instead of a corporate sponsor, the ad is being published by the family or friends of the deceased. XavierItzm ( talk) 09:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've seen Quadrant Magazine listed as a source a few times recently and I'm dubious on its use. Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Quadrant Magazine?
Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information
Bacondrum ( talk) 22:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I was looking through the Spanish-American War article and found some very dubious information sourced to this site (the material I removed here [3]). Judging by [4], this is one man's pet project and he definitely does not qualify as a subject expert. Unfortunately, this site seems to be used as a source for many articles, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 06:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor at
Lauren Southern has argued that Hope not Hate is a self-published source and that self published sources can never be cited for BLPs per
WP:BLPSPS. Hope not Hate was cited for the following statement: The UK-based advocacy group Hope Not Hate has described Southern as an advocate of the
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory (
source)
There doesn't appear to be a meaningful factual dispute about Southern's position: I won't link to her Youtube video, but she explicitly says "the great replacement is happening" and multiple additional sources link her to the theory - but an editor has argued that HNH is prohibited even with in-text attribution.
Nblund talk 20:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Attribution is always best with what is (in effect) an advocacy organisation. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
In 2017, Southern produced a video on the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which posits that non-white immigration will lead to a "genocide" of white Europeans) than what is proposed, because the current wording is much more specific than simply stating that Southern is an "advocate" of the theory. feminist ( talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
in the context of establishing notability of Star Trek articles. Specifically, as used in Away team (Star Trek term):
Simon & Schuster, according to Memory Alpha, are "the current holders of the rights to publish official Star Trek novels and reference works." Are these still considered secondary sources, or independent of the subject? 9 3 ( talk) 02:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
As above. They are good sources for details in an article, but cannot be used to establish notability themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy a reliable source for information of human genetics? There is currently a debate about it at Talk:Xiongnu#Factual accuracy of genetics section, where this article has been used as a source. A number of users have expressed concerns about the journal's peer-review process (three days: "Received: February 25 2015; accepted: February 28 2015; published: March 31 2015.") and about the structure and nature of the article in question.
It is currently being used to support the following statements:
Researchers have proposed that the 4 Y-DNA haplogroup Q1b (M-378) specimens in the Heigouliang host tomb may originate from the Indo-European Yuezhi society, who were, at one time, the elite rulers of the Xiongnu. On the other hand, the Y-DNA Q1a samples from the victim tombs were assigned to a North Asian origin.
I'll note that in my own brief research on the journal I've been unable to find an actual website (only broken links) besides the journal detail linked to above anda
Facebook page.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 18:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this text appropriate to add to the CBD article based on this Frontiers in Neurology paper?
Pamplona, Fabricio A.; da Silva, Lorenzo Rolim; Coan, Ana Carolina (12 September 2018). "Potential Clinical Benefits of CBD-Rich Cannabis Extracts Over Purified CBD in Treatment-Resistant Epilepsy: Observational Data Meta-analysis". Frontiers in Neurology. 9: 759. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00759. ISSN 1664-2295. PMC 6143706. PMID 30258398.
A 2018 meta-analysis compared the potential therapeutic properties of "purified CBD" with full-plant, CBD-rich cannabis extracts for treating refractory (treatment-resistant) epilepsy, noting several differences. The daily average dose for people using full-plant extracts was more than four times lower than for those using purified CBD, indicating a possible synergistic effect (or " entourage effect") between CBD and other plant compounds. For epileptics, CBD-rich extracts were found to have a "better therapeutic potential" and had fewer adverse effects than purified CBD.
Both the Committee on Publication Ethics and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association vouch for the editorial process of Frontiers Publications. It had been added to Beall's list of "predatory" journals, though this Nature article shows that the blacklisting was controversial.
The text and paper was deleted for being "junk" in this edit. One editor at the Project Medicine talk page said they had never seen this journal rejected before, while others claimed it was predatory and should be rejected. Still others suggested I should look for "better sources", like individual studies on CBD and epilepsy. No one had a problem with my summary of the paper.
This meta analysis looked at over 200 individual studies. Because the study of CBD and the discovery of the endocannabinoid system is so new, meta analyses regarding CBD are few and far between. Frankly, I fail to see how editors cherry picking from individual studies trumps a meta analysis.
I would like to determine whether Wikipedia is blacklisting Frontiers, and if not, I would like to reinsert the information. The article, which gets about 6K views a day, presently has one sentence in the "research" section. Thank you, petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Frontiers is better than OMICS which we should blacklist. A bunch of OMICS stuff is copied and pasted. And most undergoes no peer review. They just lost a 50 million lawsuit for dishonest publishing practices. [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Heavy.com is a clickbait-site that hastily throws together "five fast facts" about anyone who trends in the news. It's been added to Katie Bouman as a source for her DOB several times, despite the fact that Heavy.com acknowledges that they got the information "in a search of online public records," which I don't believe would satisfy normal WP:RS journalistic scrutiny. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
On Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#List_of_primary_studies there has been some disagreement on whether this source from the AVMA would be reliable for stating upper-level findings related to Fatal dog attacks in the United States, especially pertaining to dog breed. I feel that per WP:IRS this not only constitutes as a very reliable source, and since it is a literature review article, it should be given higher weight than articles which are not literature reviews. PearlSt82 ( talk) 13:56, 12 April 2019 (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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy?
— feminist ( talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thepointsguy.com
from the
spam blacklist would be to add thepointsguy.com/news
to the
spam whitelist. The majority of the site's "News" section is still promotional, but it's better than the rest of the site (which is exclusively sponsored content). —
Newslinger
talk 21:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thepointsguy.com/reviews
) seem reasonable as well. Flight and lounge reviews written by their staff should be usable as sources for "Services" sections of airline articles (e.g.
Alaska Airlines#Services,
Ethiopian Airlines#Services,
WestJet Encore#Cabins and services). I would prefer sourcing a fact to The Points Guy instead of the airline's website. Note: Based on their website, credit card "reviews" are under the thepointsguy.com/guide
domain; these can remain blacklisted.
feminist (
talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thepointsguy.com/news
and thepointsguy.com/reviews
at
WT:WHITELIST § "News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews). Please comment there if you would like to extend or change the request.His Manhattan awards party—which showered accolades on categories such as No-Fee Card of the Year and Best Hotel Loyalty Program—attracted guests such as figure skater Adam Rippon, Nobel Peace laureate Leymah Gbowee and pop star Bebe Rexha. For more than an hour, bank executives and their counterparts from hotel chains and airlines took to the stage to accept awards. The price tag for the black-tie affair was about $1.5 million, according to a person familiar with the matter. TPG paid about $250,000, the person said. The banks and hotels paid the rest.
NOTE: I had added some fully-cited content to The Points Guy a few days ago. That was deleted by another editor who then added a large amount of content with no citations. (It's easy to see all of that at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Points_Guy&type=revision&diff=891996458&oldid=890464452)
Is this acceptable in an encyclopedia article? Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
From "the old rectory organisation uk" (Peter Robinson) I was told that my 1972 Triumph Stag was dispatched from the factory to Henlys Limited in London. administrator@the-old-rectors.org.uk
From the first owner that he picked up the car in 1972 at a Garage by the Grossvenor Square. Which could mean that Henly was distributing Triumph cars aswell.
Kind regards Peter Bächi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.189.204 ( talk) 06:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Is NextShark (nextshark.com) a reliable source for information related to a sexual harassment and assault petition in the Soka University of America article (added in Special:Diff/892086344)? The source page in question is "Students Unite After Soka University Told Asian American Survivor to ‘Get Over’ Sexual Harassment" by Nadya Okamoto.
NextShark appears to be a lifestyle and entertainment news website targeted to Asian Americans. They have an editorial team. There is a previous noticeboard discussion of this source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 258 § NextShark. — Newslinger talk 09:43, 12 April 2019 (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.
Is [15] reliable as a WP:HISTRS or even, WP:RS? Is used as a source over numerous articles. ∯WBG converse 14:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Intro to my question: I am preparing a draft article (where text most probably disappeared already) about the company where I work, Salt Edge. In a nutshell, it is a fintech company that integrates with banks' interfaces so that bank clients can connect all their bank accounts into third party applications (PFMs) and have an aggregated view of their financial data. So, up to this date, the company has integrated with 3100 banks in 61 countries. The best source that shows this info is actually the link to the website's page with integrations. Yet, according to reliable sources rule, I cannot include it.
Question: Which one from the following links is more appropriate for being used as reference then? The statement from wiki article is "Salt Edge is connected to 3100+ financial institutions and interfaces in over 60 countries (April 2019) worldwide for account aggregation purposes."
Thanks a lot Anisoara Popovici ( talk) 13:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I will direct you to
wp:n. The sources may be RS, however, just not for what you want.
Slatersteven (
talk) 08:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
A public figure uses one name in public. There is a source for birth record data which someone is using to include another name in this person's Wikipedia article. Some issues with the data is that it is not a name which the person uses, or wants in the Wikipedia article, and that it came from WP:OR of a dataset, and it is only sourced to a dataset.
The particular article is Talk:Jussie_Smollett#Government_name[ and the user advocating for inclusion is General Ization. Here is the source.
I am not sure that this is exactly a "reliable sources noticeboard" issue, except for the practice that Wikipedia typically does not use databases as information sources in articles. Could I get comments either here or there? Thanks.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I came across a series of stubs about politicians in Khatumo State, Somalia ( Biindhe, Abdi-Joof, Garab-Yare) that cited Somalia Report (English, also known as piracyreport.com), Horseed Media (Somali language), and Allssc.com (Somali language). My question for this noticeboard is if these sources are generally reliable for statements of fact, and if they should be considered generally reliable for assessing the notability of subjects covered by them. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 15 April 2019 (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.
Hello everyone. I have a question about whether or not the following source ( What if we loved black people as much as we love black culture would be usable in a potential expansion of the Little Eva: The Flower of the South article. The following part from the web page is the portion that I would use in the expansion:
In the story “Little Eva, The Flower of the South”, people of color can also be seen as props to help portray Eva as being an angelic and perfect child. The story represents “little colored boys and girls” as being dependent on Eva as she teaches them the alphabet. This theme of Eva caring for the people of color in the story portrays her as being superior over them. Smith’s essay on “race” discusses how some texts in children’s literature “homogenize and belittle people of color” and often set black people in the contrast of white characters. “Little Eva, The Flower of the South” is a perfect example of this.
The website was done by a professor from the University of Wisconsin, Madison so it leads the above link some credibility. However, I have a suspicion that this may be a discussion board assignment and that the author (i.e. Angela Tucker) may have written this for a class. For those unfamiliar, some English classes assign their students to write a discussion board post on a certain topic and respond to other students’ posts. As someone with a M.A. in English, I have done these kinds of posts many times. For clarity, I have nothing against them, and I find them to be a useful education tool.
When I click on the author’s name, I can only see two articles written by this individual, including this one. That article directly talks about a University of Wisconsin, Madison class. I am assuming that this would make the page invalid for use on a Wikipedia page as it was most likely written by a student as part of an assignment, but I wanted to double-check here. Apologies for the long post. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I am requesting for comment about reliable sources of celebrity news sites, including Perez Hilton which is uncertainly reliable news source for citation in celebrity, entertainment and gossip. -- Acajenka ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
No celebrity gossip source is Reliable Simple rule of thumb, as far as I am concerned. Collect ( talk) 13:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång made an error in their search. Here is the correct search:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&search=%22PerezHilton.com%22
I am inclined to start going through the list and removing it as an unreliable source, keeping the exceptions such as BLPSELFPUB. Any objections? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed on several occasions that editors have tried to introduce fringey and rightwing POV content by using the Tennessee Star as a source. The Tennessee Star looks like a normal newspaper (e.g. like The Tennessean) but is just right-wing nonsense masquerading as a local newspaper. [23] [24] It's part of a concerted effort by far-right activists to contaminate public discourse: "Launched in February 2017, the Star is part of a growing trend of opaque, locally focused, ideological outlets, dressed up as traditional newspapers. From the Arizona Monitor to the Maine Examiner, sites with names and layouts designed to echo those of nonpartisan publications — and with varying levels of credibility — have emerged across the country, aimed at influencing local politics by stepping into the coverage void left by the collapsing finances of local newspapers." Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.This site is demonstrably not a "well-established news outlet."
Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.I'm not aware that any of these sites have any "reputation for accuracy" — indeed, they appear to have the opposite. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
stepping into the coverage void left by the collapsing finances of local newspapersThis makes me sad. GMG talk 00:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Inaccuracy is what we are concerned with, not bias. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Turner Classic Movie has a solid Database for film. I also believe that it is NOT user-generated. Check out their TCMDb section. They seem reliable when it comes to year of release, cast & crew, even some areas have a Leonard Maltin reviews.
Main Page: http://www.tcm.com/
TCMDb section: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/?ecid=subnavdatabasehome
"To Have and To Have Not" film page: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3190/To-Have-and-Have-Not/
Give me your feedback. Filmman3000 ( talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Runway Girl Network a reliable source for topics relating to aviation? feminist ( talk) 07:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is axios.com a reliable source? Here is their About page. They have been cited by Reuters, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, New York Times, Washington Post. They've issued corrections of their own articles. [36] [37] [38] Thank you. starship .paint ~ KO 02:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what this person's real name is, since he seems to use both. His book "The Miracle of Islamic Science", also titled "The Miracle of Islam Science" or, when credited as Kasem Khaleel, "The Arabian Connection: A Conspiracy Against Humanity", is used as a source on History of infrastructure, History of road transport, Mirror, History of the petroleum industry, Oil well, and Road. His books are available on Google books in snippet view only, and the only online thing I can find linked to him is this, which is just an excerpt from the book: https://www.mediamonitors.net/setting-the-record-straight-what-is-taught-in-the-west-about-science-and-what-should-be-taught/. Any ideas? Dragoon17 ( talk) 03:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This discussion was last held in 2014, and it's time for an update. Mathglot ( talk)
May I ask confirmation whether Wikipedia considers The TransAdvocate ( https://www.transadvocate.com) to be WP:RELIABLE? We've no article for The TransAdvocate. I see a previous discussion here [40], regarding "use in BLP, etc", which seemed to deem it WP:SELFPUBLISH. Thank you. A145GI15I95 ( talk) 16:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Collapsed my own comments which were not written to be published on this noticeboard, nor was permission given to move them
|
---|
|
Exercise caution when using such sourcesand
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Even if you think Williams is an expert, the source is still self-published (Williams runs the website) and in this case the source is being used to reference Catharine MacKinnon - a living person. Additionally, even if you think Williams is an expert (something still not proven), that does not mean every other author on TransAdvocate gets to be considered an expert by association. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This query is regarding Birjis Qadr article. Can I use this website to cite Qadr's date of death and full name? The website claims that it is being maintained by a descendant of Qadr. The current citation in the article for Qadr's date of death is unreliable and will be removed. Also, currently I do not find any other source mentioning Qadr's date of death. RRD ( talk) 13:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Article: John D. Zeglis
The article is weakly referenced, but he appears to be notable based on this which appears to be independent of the author, but of dubious reliability. The [ Google search] brought up a bunch of sources. I'm curious to see which ones you all think would be helpful to establish notability or reliably used for facts (I believe the first 3 are okay):
{{
cite web}}
: |last3=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)I got up to page 8 of the Google search before I got tired of posting. I think some of these should be reliable, but I wanted to hear what other people think, especially for future reference for notability and reliability. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Bobby soxer (music) has had a global unsourced tag for 27 months. Any material tagged that long can very legitimately be challenged and removed. Slightmile has repeatedly restored it with no effort to provide a source, in violation of WP:V. How long does the information need to remain in the article unsourced? Another 27 months? Indefinitely? 75.191.40.148 ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Located here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 17:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Would this source be considered reliable, per WP:RS#Scholarship? —J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God ( talk) 01:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Is athensnews.gr a Reliable Source? Is this 1999 article, [45] a Reliable Source for a historical event? I have never heard of Athens News. I am against using these kinds of non RS, as they are not helpful in weighing the events, or containing fallacies that are hard to spot. I am not against the text supported by the specific citation, what has been added is common knowledge among greeks as we are taught about them since elementary school. But we are having a debate about whether we should rely on these kinds of sources. Well, what do you say? Cinadon36 ( talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I have never heard of Athens News. What an argument... Khirurg ( talk) 18:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
So your argument goes like this: There is a WP article about this newspaper, so it is RS. Absurd.This is a silly remark. Read the article and see the good reviews and the professional publishing houses that it was part of. Dr. K. 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is another piece of information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible. Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used. Cinadon36 ( talk) 19:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Athens News was (and still is) well known. Even an Imerida (Atelier) was held recently in Greece regarding the influence of newspapers and magazines to the politics of Greece, where Athens News was a topic. IMO, Athens News meets Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
this in RSN first, then we see if it is really WP:OR. So far, the addition of this tag cannot be justified. Why should we solve this at RS and not at the Talk Page? As for justification, I have explained why it is OR at the article's Talk Page. [48] Cinadon36 ( talk) 04:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As to the questions, firstly having people say using it as a source (especially without knowing what they are using it as a source for) or committing on what it does does not mean it is reliable, (look at the daily Mail). Having said that I can find nothing to indicate it is not an RS. If someone can demonstrate it has a reputation for telling porkies let me know. Until then its an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. So, WP requires reputation for fact checking. Also, I haven't seen AthensNews editorial policy. Cinadon36 ( talk) 10:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
David Brewer, author of the book Greece, the Hidden Centuries: Turkish Rule from the Fall of Constantinople to Greek writes in his book's acknowledgements: "I have explored some of this book's issues in articles for Athens News, and I am very grateful to the paper's editor John Psaropoulos for the opportunity to do so".[8]
In the book Port Cities as Areas of Transition: Ethnographic Perspectives the reference section includes the mention: "References Athens News (2003): Immigration and the Economy. Special Supplement to Athens News 19/09/2003 (www.athensnews.gr)".[14]
The article "Ancient Roman ships to be raised," by Athens News on 10 October 1980, is quoted in the book Octavian's Campsite Memorial for the Actian War, published by the American Philosophical Society.[15]
The book Instilling Religion in Greek and Turkish Nationalism: A “Sacred Synthesis” uses the 2007 Athens News article Greeks and Turks in War and Peace.[16]
The book Orthodox Constructions of the West. published by the Oxford University Press, uses the 2007 Athens News article Fighting for an authentic faith.[17]
During the hearings of the United States. Congress's House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe, Athens News was quoted as follows: "Article from Athens News of April 30, 1971, concerning editorial reaction of the junta organ Estia to Under Secretary Irwin's statement to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the State Department was disappointed over the continuing denial of civil liberties in Greece.[18]
This kind of publication record looks like world-class to me. Dr. K. 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations quotes Athens News as follows: "The Somme is like the Holocaust. It revealed things about mankind that we cannot come to terms with and cannot forget. It can never become the past. on winning the 1995 Booker Prize for her First World War novel The Ghost Road in Athens News 9 November 1995".
Athens News has been described as "The main English-language newspaper, available in most resorts, is the Athens News (weekly every Friday, online at ®www.athensnews .gr; €2.50), in colour with good features and Balkan news, plus entertainment and arts listings.".[5]
Athens News has been described as a "historic newspaper",[6][7][4] and as "having written its own history [in the annals] of the Greek Press".[3]
In October 1971, Athens News publisher Yannis Horn was arrested and jailed for writing an article against the junta after a visit to Athens by US vice-president Spiro Agnew. The title of the article was "Βόμβες και επιστρατευμένοι μαθητές υποδέχονται τον Άγκνιου" (Bombs and recruited students greet Agnew).[3]
In 1973, Horn published an article under the title "Η πολιτική κατάσταση στην Ελλάδα σήμερα" (The political situation in Greece today).[3] The article was written in Chinese.[3] Horn did not speak Chinese, but he copied a random article from a Chinese newspaper that he had seen that day, and he changed his Greek name "Yannis Horn" to its pseudo-Chinese version "Ya – nih orn".[3][4] He was arrested for the publication of the article, and was told by a junta official that if he were ever to be caught again [by the junta official] he would be converted to soap.[3][4]
In April 1973, Athens News, along with Bradini, and Thessaloniki, were the only newspapers in Greece to publish comments by Konstantinos Karamanlis criticising the dictatoship.[3] The editions of all three newspapers were confiscated by the dictators.[3]
Rough Guides writes: "The online edition of the Athens News, Greece's longest-running, quality English-language newspaper with the city's top shows." and "By far the best of the English language newspapers is the four-colour Athens news (daily except Monday online at athensnews.gr).[8]
It has been described as "The main English-language newspaper, available in most resorts, is the Athens News (weekly every Friday, online at ®www.athensnews .gr; €2.50), in colour with good features and Balkan news, plus entertainment and arts listings.".[9]
Rough guides to Europe describes it as a " Useful and literate English-language daily".[10] while in the book Transitions it is mentioned that: "Greece and the Mediterranean English-language newspapers such as The Athens News (www.athensnews.gr) and The Portugal News (www.tlie-news.net) may be helpful sources of job vacancies."[11]
This forum is not for discussing users actions, stop. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
We have an editor, M.vladislav26 (I'd link the editor, but that would alert them to this discussion) who has been adding links to blogs on headworks.io, which does not meet RS as far as I can see. The authors are not independently notable or recognized for their work in the field. The site itself is a consulting company. SEO at work? Is this grounds to blacklist or block the promoter? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:22, 23 April 2019 (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 260 | Archive 261 | Archive 262 | Archive 263 | Archive 264 | Archive 265 | → | Archive 270 |
Is Timeline a reliable source? I am considering adding the following information to the Xennials article:
[Xennials] represent a small population among a time period of record-low birth rate in America. There were roughly 25.1 million people born in the U.S. between 1978 and 1984, representing only 36% of all Gen X births, or in 1984, merely 10.6% of the entire American population. (Multiple factors contributed to lower birth rates at this time, including more women entering the workforce, the oil crisis, higher crime rates, and a shaky economy.) On the other hand, beginning in 1977, Xennials mark the beginning of an upswing in birth rate, at 15.1%, compared to Gen X’s low point, a 14.6% birth rate in 1975 and 1976, respectively. [1]
-- Kolya Butternut ( talk) 02:42, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the March 14 HuffPost ( RSP entry) article "Facebook, Axios And NBC Paid This Guy To Whitewash Wikipedia Pages" reliable for claims related to paid editing in Axios (website), NBC News, Caryn Marooney, Conflict-of-interest editing on Wikipedia, and other affected articles?
The HuffPost article was written by Ashley Feinberg, who is a "Senior Reporter" and not a "Contributor". This was also covered in this month's issue of The Signpost at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2019-03-31/In the media § Declared paid editing.
I'm submitting this inquiry in response to
BC1278's request in
Special:Diff/888253168 for "an official consensus as to whether this article is or is not a reliable source for alleging paid editing impropriety"
at
WP:AN § HuffPost article on WP COI editing.
BC1278 is the paid editor (Ed Sussman) mentioned in the HuffPost article. —
Newslinger
talk 17:48, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
"This article is wholly unreliable"at Special:Diff/890400952 and argued that a Wikipedia discussion
"found it to be an unreliable source"in Special:Diff/888250126. This noticeboard is the correct venue to discuss a source's reliability, especially when contested on article talk pages.
"unprecedented scenario"and said:
"when the content perspective holds that an RS is an RS, yet the administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong, it creates an incredibly uncomfortable scenario. There's no guidebook on how to deal with this". If it's impossible for editors to discuss just the source and its content, then please defer to the article talk pages and WP:AN § HuffPost article on WP COI editing, and ignore this discussion. — Newslinger talk 21:57, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
Two more articles where it's appeared. -- Ronz ( talk) 23:14, 2 April 2019 (UTC)
So have admins looked into this and determined that no paid editing occurred? Slatersteven ( talk) 07:44, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
CORPORATE PR PHONY WIKIPEDIA EDITOR WHITEWASHES ARTICLES is more compelling clickbait than Several companies pay Wikipedia editor to file routine boring complaints about content that arguably violates Wikipedia's own policies.Swarm— Sting · Hive 🐝🐝🐝 13:06, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
"whitewash", are there any factual errors in the article? The words "whitewash", "bludgeon", and "canvass" are not used in the article's body. I understand the article characterizes some of Sussman's actions negatively, even when they are compliant with Wikipedia's policies. As the article does not claim that Sussman violated any policies, I interpret the article as a critical opinion of the types of edits that are allowed by Wikipedia's policies, and not a personal allegation. Sussman's edits are presented as a case study. — Newslinger talk 22:21, 3 April 2019 (UTC)
"The administrative perspective is that we've investigated the claims and determined that the RS is wrong... Eight admins have replied to the thread. All eight appear to be on the same page that the article is exaggerated sensationalism."BC1278 ( talk) 18:30, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
I have previously been advised regarding Harry Scott Gibbons that he is not a reliable author, on a different Talk page, although he is one of the most authoritative figures on the subject of the attempted genocide and ethnic cleansing of Turkish Cypriots on Cyprus, I have thus taken the liberty to include him and the previous Talk page thread here for discussion.
Comments on Harry Scott Gibbons copied from
Talk:Fazıl Küçük
|
---|
|
I can see a number of "issues" being cited, but there are two main ones here as to why Harry Scott Gibbons is not a reliable source, as far as I'm understanding: 1) any accounts of the events that cite him are, by their support of the same facts as also documented and cited by Gibbons himself, discountable as Turkish Cypriot-bias? and 2) he does not give a "readable account", but is very "one-sided" in his support for things as they were documented by international media, official accounts from the British government and then-some at the time?
Just to clarify something here. Harry Scott Gibbons is a journalist. He served in the Middle East, Cyprus, Turkey, Greece and the United States, and is the author of multiple works including books and articles, who I can right off say have been published by Charles Bravos/Savannah Koch/the Journal of International Affairs and then-some, without getting into deep-research about it.
I am to understand that we judge sources by what they are, not what they say? And Harry Scott Gibbons IS authoritative on the subject he discusses. He is a third-party to the events he discusses. He himself cites very authoritative accounts of the events he discusses. He is well cited by others touching on the subject he discusses. He offers very readable accounts of the events he discusses. His works should not therefore simply be discarded as unreadable, one-sided, Turkish Cypriot-bias, or simply his opinions.
Pierre Oberling, the author of "The Road to Bellapais", typically refers to him as he did in reference to "Peace Without Honour" on P.89 of his book: "This unfortunately much-neglected work by a British journalist in Cyprus contains the most detailed and reliable account of the 1963-1964 crisis thus published".Oberling, Pierre (1982). The Road to Bellapais: The Turkish Cypriot Exodus to Northern Cypress (East European Monographs, No. 125). Social Science Monographs. p. 89. ISBN 0880330007. Citations are made throughout this book with the permission of Gibbons.
The UK Houses of Parliament recognise and concede to the authoritativeness of Gibbons and his work by citing his work as the "well documented" evidence of what they argue the UK is already very well aware of regarding Cyprus.
"CYPRUS - GENOCIDE OF TURKISH CYPRIOTS, EDM #276, Tabled 31 January 2001, 2000-01 Session". That this House calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise the attempted genocide committed against the Turkish Cypriots by the Greek Cypriot militia in 1963-64, 1967 and 1974, well documented in 'The Genocide Files' by Harry Scott-Gibbons and in official British documents and newspaper reports at the time; considers that since those massacres of Turkish Cypriots were committed by Greek Cypriot forces pursuant to a written plan, 'the Akritas Plan', Articles 2(a) (b) and (c) of the UN Genocide Convention are clearly satisfied; and calls upon Her Majesty's Government to take action to bring to justice persons responsible who are still alive and living in southern Cyprus.
By raising this I'd also like to clarify whether referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source would actually be veiled attempts to undermine any contribution to Wikipedia that allows for the inclusion of information that may be "disagreeable" by pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot pushers?
I'm providing three of Gibbons' works here, for reference:
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)Thanks in advance.
Nargothronde ( talk) 04:52, 4 April 2019 (UTC)
By raising this I'd also like to clarify whether referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source would actually be veiled attempts to undermine any contribution to Wikipedia that allows for the inclusion of information that may be "disagreeable" by pro-Greek Cypriot and anti-Turkish Cypriot pushers?As the editor who has been "referring to Gibbons as a unreliable source", I resent the thinly veiled insinuation about my possible motives. I have asked Nargothronde to redact it, but they have not been editing since I made the request, so I feel I have to comment before the thread is closed.
This is an attempt to rephrase the problem raised in the section "Harry Scott Gibbons" above. Are the given sources reliable for adding this sentence to List of ethnic cleansing campaigns?
There was an ethnic cleansing of the
Turkish Cypriot population in
Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots in 1963–74, before, during and after the
Turkish Peace Operation.
In 1963-64, and again in 1967, the Greek Cypriots, with Greek military assistance, raided isolated Turkish villages and attacked the Turkish Cypriot quarters of the towns, pushing the Turkish Cypriots into even more densely populated enclaves... the division of Cyprus into two ethnically homogeneous, self-governing states was not achieved by the Turkish armed intervention of 1974 but by the Greek Cypriots in their campaign of aggression against the Turkish Cypriot community during the previous decade...
... armed attacks on Turkish Cypriot civilians in December 1963 by re-armed Greek Cypriot police and irregulars from the banned EOKA movement... military assaults on Turkish Cypriots in 1967 were all too vivid illustrations of what mob rule could bring about... The elaborate plan codenamed Iphestos 1974 [volcano], which was captured with other documents of the Greek Cypriot National Guard in the weeks following the coup, contained the specifics of the annihilation of the Turkish Cypriots, up to the exact location as to where to bury their corpses.23 The raging attacks on Turkish Cypriots in summer 1974 were all the necessary proof of the vulnerability of the Turkish Cypriot population in the face of extremists' control over the island... The provisions of the First Geneva Conference were immediately violated by Greek and Greek Cypriot forces, who continued to attack and put under siege Turkish Cypriots residing outside the protective umbrella of the Turkish armed forces... As the (Second Geneva Conference) talks were going on, the occupation and siege of Turkish enclaves in the Greek sector of the island continued; the situation in the regions of Serdarlı and Nicosia were particularly disturbing...
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help)... the Greek fixation with Enosis-union with Greece-led to a one-sided war against the Turks and the brutal massacres of their men, women and children...
Greek actions seemed so haphazard that although it quickly became obvious the attack on the Turks was premeditated, the extent of the planning was not fully discovered until April 1966, when a Greek Cypriot newspaper, Patris, gave details of what has become known as the Akritas Plan. This was the first exercise in ethnic cleansing - racial extermination or genocide, as I prefer to call it - the Makarios government undertook...
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help){{
cite book}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link) CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)Source #5 has no quotation and no external link, but its inclusion seems to be based on this source:
Newspapers at the time reported the forceful exodus of the Turkish Cypriots from their homes in the days and weeks that followed... threats, shootings and attempts of arson were committed against the Turkish Cypriots to force them out of their homes... Research produced by Canadian scholar Richard Patrick in the 1970s is considered among the most authoritative accounts of the period... Patrick argued that most Turkish Cypriots moved only after Turkish Cypriots had been killed, abducted or harassed by Greek Cypriots within their village or quarter... Costas M Constantinou, professor of international relations at the University of Cyprus, believes the segregation that followed the forceful movement of the Turkish Cypriots into enclaves in 1963-64 had tremendous implications... The 'Akritas' plan... stipulated an organised attack on Turkish Cypriots should they show signs of resistance to the measures, stating: "In the event of a planned or staged Turkish attack, it is imperative to overcome it by force in the shortest possible time, because if we succeed in gaining command of the situation (in one or two days), no outside intervention would be either justified or possible."... Political commentator and columnist Loucas Charalambous recalls how preparations for an armed conflict were underway long before December 1963. Charalambous personally witnessed military exercises taking place by paramilitaries months prior to the outbreak of hostilities.
Thank you! -- T*U ( talk) 13:22, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It has been asserted that here was an ethnic cleansing of the Turkish Cypriot population in Cyprus by the Greeks and Greek Cypriots in 1963–74, before, during and after the Turkish Peace Operation.Slatersteven ( talk) 13:26, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
It has been asserted that here was a campaign of aggression and violence aimed at the [Turkish people. Slatersteven ( talk) 13:58, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
Should the Fred Rogers article include a paragraph like this?
Rogers' friend William Hirsch told biographer Maxwell King that Rogers said he was "smack in the middle" of the sexuality scale and found both men and women attractive.
the first full-length biography of Fred Rogersand it says it is
Based on original interviews, oral histories, and archival documents.
In a conversation with one one of his friends, the openly gay Dr. William Hirsch, Fred Rogers himself concluded that if sexuality was measured on a scale of one to ten: "Well, you know, I must be right smack in the middle. Because I have found women attractive, and I have found men attractive."31(Page 208.) The book's footnote says:
31. Hirsch, William. Personal Interview. 7 November 2011. Audio.(Page 379.) Elsewhere the book describes Hirsch as a
close family friendof the Rogers' (page 346).
WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 16:46, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Matters such as "sexuality" which are based on conjecture and opinions of a single person are, in fact, weak to begin with. As such, use in Wikipedia articles is imp[roper to begin with, as otherwise huge numbers of people would be labelled "bisexual" buy Wikipedia which is actually an affront to the LGBTQ community to begin with. It is labeling of people' which is one major issue, so unless there is self-identification, we avoid it. The nook neither states nor even implies how Rogers viewed himself. Collect ( talk) 20:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
A claim or assertion that someone has done something illegal or wrong, typically one made without proof.Being bisexual is neither wrong nor illegal.) WanderingWanda (they/them) ( t/ c) 21:21, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
So... do we recommend removing the statement from the article as being UNDUE? Blueboar ( talk) 17:03, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
I recently came across a case at DRV where it was being argued that two sources (both admitted to be reliable and in-depth) were not independent because both journals were under the same ownership. The cited policy was GNG Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability. In my opinion, this was not intended to rule out two different articles written by two different authors in two different journals on two different dates. I would like to establish where the consenssus lies on this. Spinning Spark 00:27, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
— Newslinger talk 00:41, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Biography Jrank reliable? I'm thinking no, as its own sources are unclear ... ? Tacyarg ( talk) 22:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
"Copyright © 2019 Net Industries and its Licensors") implies that the content is licensed, they do not provide details. — Newslinger talk 17:27, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
The materials used and displayed on this website, including but not limited to text, photographs, graphics, illustrations and artwork, video, music and sound, and names, logos, trademarks, service marks, and copyright are the property of their respective owners. <some text omitted> The display of third party trademarks, service marks or copyright on this website does not imply that a license of any kind has been granted.[1] furthermore looks like a CYA on copyright status. As far as RS goes, if they're just re-linking Gale pubs, it is probably better to link directly to the originals in references. Crow Caw 20:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
More I look, worse it gets. These domains should be blacklisted before problem gets too much worse. Links are in 100s of articles on enwiki. Not just Gale but other copyright sources. -- Green C 04:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
References
There's a newish user who would like to help improve the article of this (comedy group?) but I know zero about reliability of Japanese sources. I'm not finding Natalie (website) in the archives/perennial sources, but since it's Japanese that might not mean anything. They're asking about the reliability for showing notability in particular. Can anyone help? I've been discussing with them at User talk:FreshUdon -- valereee ( talk) 12:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC)
Whereas a search of the archives yields a number of discussiosn on the subject, these look inconclusive largely because people mix up the un-related subject of newspaper obituaries with paid, commercial obits. I hope we are all clear that if the news page of the New York Times publishes your obituary, that is a news article from a generally accepted WP:RS. This RfC is not about that, however. This RfC is about paid obit such as:
I propose that these are not WP:RS. On the contrary, obituaries published by funeral homes are the same as an advertisement; the only difference from a product advertisement in a glossy magazine being that instead of a corporate sponsor, the ad is being published by the family or friends of the deceased. XavierItzm ( talk) 09:45, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I've seen Quadrant Magazine listed as a source a few times recently and I'm dubious on its use. Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Quadrant Magazine?
Option 1: Generally reliable for factual reporting Option 2: Unclear or additional considerations apply Option 3: Generally unreliable for factual reporting Option 4: Publishes false or fabricated information
Bacondrum ( talk) 22:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
I was looking through the Spanish-American War article and found some very dubious information sourced to this site (the material I removed here [3]). Judging by [4], this is one man's pet project and he definitely does not qualify as a subject expert. Unfortunately, this site seems to be used as a source for many articles, and I'm not sure what to do about it. Red Rock Canyon ( talk) 06:44, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
An editor at
Lauren Southern has argued that Hope not Hate is a self-published source and that self published sources can never be cited for BLPs per
WP:BLPSPS. Hope not Hate was cited for the following statement: The UK-based advocacy group Hope Not Hate has described Southern as an advocate of the
The Great Replacement conspiracy theory (
source)
There doesn't appear to be a meaningful factual dispute about Southern's position: I won't link to her Youtube video, but she explicitly says "the great replacement is happening" and multiple additional sources link her to the theory - but an editor has argued that HNH is prohibited even with in-text attribution.
Nblund talk 20:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Attribution is always best with what is (in effect) an advocacy organisation. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:34, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
In 2017, Southern produced a video on the Great Replacement conspiracy theory, which posits that non-white immigration will lead to a "genocide" of white Europeans) than what is proposed, because the current wording is much more specific than simply stating that Southern is an "advocate" of the theory. feminist ( talk) 16:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
in the context of establishing notability of Star Trek articles. Specifically, as used in Away team (Star Trek term):
Simon & Schuster, according to Memory Alpha, are "the current holders of the rights to publish official Star Trek novels and reference works." Are these still considered secondary sources, or independent of the subject? 9 3 ( talk) 02:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
As above. They are good sources for details in an article, but cannot be used to establish notability themselves. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs (talk) 13:43, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Is the Russian Journal of Genetic Genealogy a reliable source for information of human genetics? There is currently a debate about it at Talk:Xiongnu#Factual accuracy of genetics section, where this article has been used as a source. A number of users have expressed concerns about the journal's peer-review process (three days: "Received: February 25 2015; accepted: February 28 2015; published: March 31 2015.") and about the structure and nature of the article in question.
It is currently being used to support the following statements:
Researchers have proposed that the 4 Y-DNA haplogroup Q1b (M-378) specimens in the Heigouliang host tomb may originate from the Indo-European Yuezhi society, who were, at one time, the elite rulers of the Xiongnu. On the other hand, the Y-DNA Q1a samples from the victim tombs were assigned to a North Asian origin.
I'll note that in my own brief research on the journal I've been unable to find an actual website (only broken links) besides the journal detail linked to above anda
Facebook page.--
Ermenrich (
talk) 18:34, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
Is this text appropriate to add to the CBD article based on this Frontiers in Neurology paper?
Pamplona, Fabricio A.; da Silva, Lorenzo Rolim; Coan, Ana Carolina (12 September 2018). "Potential Clinical Benefits of CBD-Rich Cannabis Extracts Over Purified CBD in Treatment-Resistant Epilepsy: Observational Data Meta-analysis". Frontiers in Neurology. 9: 759. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2018.00759. ISSN 1664-2295. PMC 6143706. PMID 30258398.
A 2018 meta-analysis compared the potential therapeutic properties of "purified CBD" with full-plant, CBD-rich cannabis extracts for treating refractory (treatment-resistant) epilepsy, noting several differences. The daily average dose for people using full-plant extracts was more than four times lower than for those using purified CBD, indicating a possible synergistic effect (or " entourage effect") between CBD and other plant compounds. For epileptics, CBD-rich extracts were found to have a "better therapeutic potential" and had fewer adverse effects than purified CBD.
Both the Committee on Publication Ethics and Open Access Scholarly Publishers Association vouch for the editorial process of Frontiers Publications. It had been added to Beall's list of "predatory" journals, though this Nature article shows that the blacklisting was controversial.
The text and paper was deleted for being "junk" in this edit. One editor at the Project Medicine talk page said they had never seen this journal rejected before, while others claimed it was predatory and should be rejected. Still others suggested I should look for "better sources", like individual studies on CBD and epilepsy. No one had a problem with my summary of the paper.
This meta analysis looked at over 200 individual studies. Because the study of CBD and the discovery of the endocannabinoid system is so new, meta analyses regarding CBD are few and far between. Frankly, I fail to see how editors cherry picking from individual studies trumps a meta analysis.
I would like to determine whether Wikipedia is blacklisting Frontiers, and if not, I would like to reinsert the information. The article, which gets about 6K views a day, presently has one sentence in the "research" section. Thank you, petrarchan47 คุ ก 19:17, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Frontiers is better than OMICS which we should blacklist. A bunch of OMICS stuff is copied and pasted. And most undergoes no peer review. They just lost a 50 million lawsuit for dishonest publishing practices. [14] Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 21:07, 5 April 2019 (UTC)
Heavy.com is a clickbait-site that hastily throws together "five fast facts" about anyone who trends in the news. It's been added to Katie Bouman as a source for her DOB several times, despite the fact that Heavy.com acknowledges that they got the information "in a search of online public records," which I don't believe would satisfy normal WP:RS journalistic scrutiny. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
On Talk:Fatal_dog_attacks_in_the_United_States#List_of_primary_studies there has been some disagreement on whether this source from the AVMA would be reliable for stating upper-level findings related to Fatal dog attacks in the United States, especially pertaining to dog breed. I feel that per WP:IRS this not only constitutes as a very reliable source, and since it is a literature review article, it should be given higher weight than articles which are not literature reviews. PearlSt82 ( talk) 13:56, 12 April 2019 (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.
Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy?
— feminist ( talk) 09:17, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thepointsguy.com
from the
spam blacklist would be to add thepointsguy.com/news
to the
spam whitelist. The majority of the site's "News" section is still promotional, but it's better than the rest of the site (which is exclusively sponsored content). —
Newslinger
talk 21:21, 9 March 2019 (UTC)
thepointsguy.com/reviews
) seem reasonable as well. Flight and lounge reviews written by their staff should be usable as sources for "Services" sections of airline articles (e.g.
Alaska Airlines#Services,
Ethiopian Airlines#Services,
WestJet Encore#Cabins and services). I would prefer sourcing a fact to The Points Guy instead of the airline's website. Note: Based on their website, credit card "reviews" are under the thepointsguy.com/guide
domain; these can remain blacklisted.
feminist (
talk) 08:15, 10 March 2019 (UTC)
thepointsguy.com/news
and thepointsguy.com/reviews
at
WT:WHITELIST § "News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (thepointsguy.com/news, thepointsguy.com/reviews). Please comment there if you would like to extend or change the request.His Manhattan awards party—which showered accolades on categories such as No-Fee Card of the Year and Best Hotel Loyalty Program—attracted guests such as figure skater Adam Rippon, Nobel Peace laureate Leymah Gbowee and pop star Bebe Rexha. For more than an hour, bank executives and their counterparts from hotel chains and airlines took to the stage to accept awards. The price tag for the black-tie affair was about $1.5 million, according to a person familiar with the matter. TPG paid about $250,000, the person said. The banks and hotels paid the rest.
NOTE: I had added some fully-cited content to The Points Guy a few days ago. That was deleted by another editor who then added a large amount of content with no citations. (It's easy to see all of that at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=The_Points_Guy&type=revision&diff=891996458&oldid=890464452)
Is this acceptable in an encyclopedia article? Peter K Burian ( talk) 19:12, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
From "the old rectory organisation uk" (Peter Robinson) I was told that my 1972 Triumph Stag was dispatched from the factory to Henlys Limited in London. administrator@the-old-rectors.org.uk
From the first owner that he picked up the car in 1972 at a Garage by the Grossvenor Square. Which could mean that Henly was distributing Triumph cars aswell.
Kind regards Peter Bächi — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.154.189.204 ( talk) 06:08, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Is NextShark (nextshark.com) a reliable source for information related to a sexual harassment and assault petition in the Soka University of America article (added in Special:Diff/892086344)? The source page in question is "Students Unite After Soka University Told Asian American Survivor to ‘Get Over’ Sexual Harassment" by Nadya Okamoto.
NextShark appears to be a lifestyle and entertainment news website targeted to Asian Americans. They have an editorial team. There is a previous noticeboard discussion of this source at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 258 § NextShark. — Newslinger talk 09:43, 12 April 2019 (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.
Is [15] reliable as a WP:HISTRS or even, WP:RS? Is used as a source over numerous articles. ∯WBG converse 14:07, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Intro to my question: I am preparing a draft article (where text most probably disappeared already) about the company where I work, Salt Edge. In a nutshell, it is a fintech company that integrates with banks' interfaces so that bank clients can connect all their bank accounts into third party applications (PFMs) and have an aggregated view of their financial data. So, up to this date, the company has integrated with 3100 banks in 61 countries. The best source that shows this info is actually the link to the website's page with integrations. Yet, according to reliable sources rule, I cannot include it.
Question: Which one from the following links is more appropriate for being used as reference then? The statement from wiki article is "Salt Edge is connected to 3100+ financial institutions and interfaces in over 60 countries (April 2019) worldwide for account aggregation purposes."
Thanks a lot Anisoara Popovici ( talk) 13:38, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I will direct you to
wp:n. The sources may be RS, however, just not for what you want.
Slatersteven (
talk) 08:38, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
A public figure uses one name in public. There is a source for birth record data which someone is using to include another name in this person's Wikipedia article. Some issues with the data is that it is not a name which the person uses, or wants in the Wikipedia article, and that it came from WP:OR of a dataset, and it is only sourced to a dataset.
The particular article is Talk:Jussie_Smollett#Government_name[ and the user advocating for inclusion is General Ization. Here is the source.
I am not sure that this is exactly a "reliable sources noticeboard" issue, except for the practice that Wikipedia typically does not use databases as information sources in articles. Could I get comments either here or there? Thanks.
Blue Rasberry (talk) 22:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I came across a series of stubs about politicians in Khatumo State, Somalia ( Biindhe, Abdi-Joof, Garab-Yare) that cited Somalia Report (English, also known as piracyreport.com), Horseed Media (Somali language), and Allssc.com (Somali language). My question for this noticeboard is if these sources are generally reliable for statements of fact, and if they should be considered generally reliable for assessing the notability of subjects covered by them. signed, Rosguill talk 23:25, 15 April 2019 (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.
Hello everyone. I have a question about whether or not the following source ( What if we loved black people as much as we love black culture would be usable in a potential expansion of the Little Eva: The Flower of the South article. The following part from the web page is the portion that I would use in the expansion:
In the story “Little Eva, The Flower of the South”, people of color can also be seen as props to help portray Eva as being an angelic and perfect child. The story represents “little colored boys and girls” as being dependent on Eva as she teaches them the alphabet. This theme of Eva caring for the people of color in the story portrays her as being superior over them. Smith’s essay on “race” discusses how some texts in children’s literature “homogenize and belittle people of color” and often set black people in the contrast of white characters. “Little Eva, The Flower of the South” is a perfect example of this.
The website was done by a professor from the University of Wisconsin, Madison so it leads the above link some credibility. However, I have a suspicion that this may be a discussion board assignment and that the author (i.e. Angela Tucker) may have written this for a class. For those unfamiliar, some English classes assign their students to write a discussion board post on a certain topic and respond to other students’ posts. As someone with a M.A. in English, I have done these kinds of posts many times. For clarity, I have nothing against them, and I find them to be a useful education tool.
When I click on the author’s name, I can only see two articles written by this individual, including this one. That article directly talks about a University of Wisconsin, Madison class. I am assuming that this would make the page invalid for use on a Wikipedia page as it was most likely written by a student as part of an assignment, but I wanted to double-check here. Apologies for the long post. Thank you in advance! Aoba47 ( talk) 02:45, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
I am requesting for comment about reliable sources of celebrity news sites, including Perez Hilton which is uncertainly reliable news source for citation in celebrity, entertainment and gossip. -- Acajenka ( talk) 01:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
No celebrity gossip source is Reliable Simple rule of thumb, as far as I am concerned. Collect ( talk) 13:50, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång made an error in their search. Here is the correct search:
https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Special:Search&limit=500&offset=0&search=%22PerezHilton.com%22
I am inclined to start going through the list and removing it as an unreliable source, keeping the exceptions such as BLPSELFPUB. Any objections? -- Guy Macon ( talk) 16:39, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
I've noticed on several occasions that editors have tried to introduce fringey and rightwing POV content by using the Tennessee Star as a source. The Tennessee Star looks like a normal newspaper (e.g. like The Tennessean) but is just right-wing nonsense masquerading as a local newspaper. [23] [24] It's part of a concerted effort by far-right activists to contaminate public discourse: "Launched in February 2017, the Star is part of a growing trend of opaque, locally focused, ideological outlets, dressed up as traditional newspapers. From the Arizona Monitor to the Maine Examiner, sites with names and layouts designed to echo those of nonpartisan publications — and with varying levels of credibility — have emerged across the country, aimed at influencing local politics by stepping into the coverage void left by the collapsing finances of local newspapers." Snooganssnoogans ( talk) 18:47, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact.This site is demonstrably not a "well-established news outlet."
Signals that a news organization engages in fact-checking and has a reputation for accuracy are the publication of corrections and disclosures of conflicts of interest.I'm not aware that any of these sites have any "reputation for accuracy" — indeed, they appear to have the opposite. NorthBySouthBaranof ( talk) 01:05, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
stepping into the coverage void left by the collapsing finances of local newspapersThis makes me sad. GMG talk 00:52, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Inaccuracy is what we are concerned with, not bias. Slatersteven ( talk) 08:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Turner Classic Movie has a solid Database for film. I also believe that it is NOT user-generated. Check out their TCMDb section. They seem reliable when it comes to year of release, cast & crew, even some areas have a Leonard Maltin reviews.
Main Page: http://www.tcm.com/
TCMDb section: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/?ecid=subnavdatabasehome
"To Have and To Have Not" film page: http://www.tcm.com/tcmdb/title/3190/To-Have-and-Have-Not/
Give me your feedback. Filmman3000 ( talk) 22:20, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
Is Runway Girl Network a reliable source for topics relating to aviation? feminist ( talk) 07:32, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Is axios.com a reliable source? Here is their About page. They have been cited by Reuters, Associated Press, Al Jazeera, New York Times, Washington Post. They've issued corrections of their own articles. [36] [37] [38] Thank you. starship .paint ~ KO 02:06, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
I am not sure what this person's real name is, since he seems to use both. His book "The Miracle of Islamic Science", also titled "The Miracle of Islam Science" or, when credited as Kasem Khaleel, "The Arabian Connection: A Conspiracy Against Humanity", is used as a source on History of infrastructure, History of road transport, Mirror, History of the petroleum industry, Oil well, and Road. His books are available on Google books in snippet view only, and the only online thing I can find linked to him is this, which is just an excerpt from the book: https://www.mediamonitors.net/setting-the-record-straight-what-is-taught-in-the-west-about-science-and-what-should-be-taught/. Any ideas? Dragoon17 ( talk) 03:48, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
This discussion was last held in 2014, and it's time for an update. Mathglot ( talk)
May I ask confirmation whether Wikipedia considers The TransAdvocate ( https://www.transadvocate.com) to be WP:RELIABLE? We've no article for The TransAdvocate. I see a previous discussion here [40], regarding "use in BLP, etc", which seemed to deem it WP:SELFPUBLISH. Thank you. A145GI15I95 ( talk) 16:37, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Collapsed my own comments which were not written to be published on this noticeboard, nor was permission given to move them
|
---|
|
Exercise caution when using such sourcesand
Never use self-published sources as third-party sources about living people, even if the author is an expert, well-known professional researcher, or writer.. Even if you think Williams is an expert, the source is still self-published (Williams runs the website) and in this case the source is being used to reference Catharine MacKinnon - a living person. Additionally, even if you think Williams is an expert (something still not proven), that does not mean every other author on TransAdvocate gets to be considered an expert by association. -- Netoholic @ 01:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
This query is regarding Birjis Qadr article. Can I use this website to cite Qadr's date of death and full name? The website claims that it is being maintained by a descendant of Qadr. The current citation in the article for Qadr's date of death is unreliable and will be removed. Also, currently I do not find any other source mentioning Qadr's date of death. RRD ( talk) 13:24, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Article: John D. Zeglis
The article is weakly referenced, but he appears to be notable based on this which appears to be independent of the author, but of dubious reliability. The [ Google search] brought up a bunch of sources. I'm curious to see which ones you all think would be helpful to establish notability or reliably used for facts (I believe the first 3 are okay):
{{
cite web}}
: |last3=
has numeric name (
help)CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (
link)I got up to page 8 of the Google search before I got tired of posting. I think some of these should be reliable, but I wanted to hear what other people think, especially for future reference for notability and reliability. -- David Tornheim ( talk) 09:45, 20 April 2019 (UTC)
Bobby soxer (music) has had a global unsourced tag for 27 months. Any material tagged that long can very legitimately be challenged and removed. Slightmile has repeatedly restored it with no effort to provide a source, in violation of WP:V. How long does the information need to remain in the article unsourced? Another 27 months? Indefinitely? 75.191.40.148 ( talk • contribs) 15:06, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Located here. petrarchan47 คุ ก 17:27, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Would this source be considered reliable, per WP:RS#Scholarship? —J.S. Clingman Fëalórin, A Child of God ( talk) 01:15, 23 April 2019 (UTC)
Is athensnews.gr a Reliable Source? Is this 1999 article, [45] a Reliable Source for a historical event? I have never heard of Athens News. I am against using these kinds of non RS, as they are not helpful in weighing the events, or containing fallacies that are hard to spot. I am not against the text supported by the specific citation, what has been added is common knowledge among greeks as we are taught about them since elementary school. But we are having a debate about whether we should rely on these kinds of sources. Well, what do you say? Cinadon36 ( talk) 18:32, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
I have never heard of Athens News. What an argument... Khirurg ( talk) 18:49, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
So your argument goes like this: There is a WP article about this newspaper, so it is RS. Absurd.This is a silly remark. Read the article and see the good reviews and the professional publishing houses that it was part of. Dr. K. 20:18, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Here is another piece of information: Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (history): Historical articles on Wikipedia should use scholarly works where possible. Where scholarly works are unavailable, the highest quality commercial or popular works should be used. Cinadon36 ( talk) 19:45, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment: Athens News was (and still is) well known. Even an Imerida (Atelier) was held recently in Greece regarding the influence of newspapers and magazines to the politics of Greece, where Athens News was a topic. IMO, Athens News meets Wikipedia's WP:RS criteria. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ( talk ✉ | contribs ✎) 21:03, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
this in RSN first, then we see if it is really WP:OR. So far, the addition of this tag cannot be justified. Why should we solve this at RS and not at the Talk Page? As for justification, I have explained why it is OR at the article's Talk Page. [48] Cinadon36 ( talk) 04:21, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
As to the questions, firstly having people say using it as a source (especially without knowing what they are using it as a source for) or committing on what it does does not mean it is reliable, (look at the daily Mail). Having said that I can find nothing to indicate it is not an RS. If someone can demonstrate it has a reputation for telling porkies let me know. Until then its an RS. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:33, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
Beware of sources that sound reliable but do not have the reputation for fact-checking and accuracy that WP:RS requires. So, WP requires reputation for fact checking. Also, I haven't seen AthensNews editorial policy. Cinadon36 ( talk) 10:58, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
David Brewer, author of the book Greece, the Hidden Centuries: Turkish Rule from the Fall of Constantinople to Greek writes in his book's acknowledgements: "I have explored some of this book's issues in articles for Athens News, and I am very grateful to the paper's editor John Psaropoulos for the opportunity to do so".[8]
In the book Port Cities as Areas of Transition: Ethnographic Perspectives the reference section includes the mention: "References Athens News (2003): Immigration and the Economy. Special Supplement to Athens News 19/09/2003 (www.athensnews.gr)".[14]
The article "Ancient Roman ships to be raised," by Athens News on 10 October 1980, is quoted in the book Octavian's Campsite Memorial for the Actian War, published by the American Philosophical Society.[15]
The book Instilling Religion in Greek and Turkish Nationalism: A “Sacred Synthesis” uses the 2007 Athens News article Greeks and Turks in War and Peace.[16]
The book Orthodox Constructions of the West. published by the Oxford University Press, uses the 2007 Athens News article Fighting for an authentic faith.[17]
During the hearings of the United States. Congress's House Committee on Foreign Affairs, Subcommittee on Europe, Athens News was quoted as follows: "Article from Athens News of April 30, 1971, concerning editorial reaction of the junta organ Estia to Under Secretary Irwin's statement to the House Foreign Affairs Committee that the State Department was disappointed over the continuing denial of civil liberties in Greece.[18]
This kind of publication record looks like world-class to me. Dr. K. 18:06, 22 April 2019 (UTC)The Oxford Dictionary of Modern Quotations quotes Athens News as follows: "The Somme is like the Holocaust. It revealed things about mankind that we cannot come to terms with and cannot forget. It can never become the past. on winning the 1995 Booker Prize for her First World War novel The Ghost Road in Athens News 9 November 1995".
Athens News has been described as "The main English-language newspaper, available in most resorts, is the Athens News (weekly every Friday, online at ®www.athensnews .gr; €2.50), in colour with good features and Balkan news, plus entertainment and arts listings.".[5]
Athens News has been described as a "historic newspaper",[6][7][4] and as "having written its own history [in the annals] of the Greek Press".[3]
In October 1971, Athens News publisher Yannis Horn was arrested and jailed for writing an article against the junta after a visit to Athens by US vice-president Spiro Agnew. The title of the article was "Βόμβες και επιστρατευμένοι μαθητές υποδέχονται τον Άγκνιου" (Bombs and recruited students greet Agnew).[3]
In 1973, Horn published an article under the title "Η πολιτική κατάσταση στην Ελλάδα σήμερα" (The political situation in Greece today).[3] The article was written in Chinese.[3] Horn did not speak Chinese, but he copied a random article from a Chinese newspaper that he had seen that day, and he changed his Greek name "Yannis Horn" to its pseudo-Chinese version "Ya – nih orn".[3][4] He was arrested for the publication of the article, and was told by a junta official that if he were ever to be caught again [by the junta official] he would be converted to soap.[3][4]
In April 1973, Athens News, along with Bradini, and Thessaloniki, were the only newspapers in Greece to publish comments by Konstantinos Karamanlis criticising the dictatoship.[3] The editions of all three newspapers were confiscated by the dictators.[3]
Rough Guides writes: "The online edition of the Athens News, Greece's longest-running, quality English-language newspaper with the city's top shows." and "By far the best of the English language newspapers is the four-colour Athens news (daily except Monday online at athensnews.gr).[8]
It has been described as "The main English-language newspaper, available in most resorts, is the Athens News (weekly every Friday, online at ®www.athensnews .gr; €2.50), in colour with good features and Balkan news, plus entertainment and arts listings.".[9]
Rough guides to Europe describes it as a " Useful and literate English-language daily".[10] while in the book Transitions it is mentioned that: "Greece and the Mediterranean English-language newspapers such as The Athens News (www.athensnews.gr) and The Portugal News (www.tlie-news.net) may be helpful sources of job vacancies."[11]
This forum is not for discussing users actions, stop. Slatersteven ( talk) 09:23, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
We have an editor, M.vladislav26 (I'd link the editor, but that would alert them to this discussion) who has been adding links to blogs on headworks.io, which does not meet RS as far as I can see. The authors are not independently notable or recognized for their work in the field. The site itself is a consulting company. SEO at work? Is this grounds to blacklist or block the promoter? Walter Görlitz ( talk) 20:22, 23 April 2019 (UTC)