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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I have seen the website Mariners, particularly its 'Empire' ship section increasingly used as one reference for ship articles, like SS Empire Abbey (to pick a fairly recent example). The index page lists sources consulted, but the sub pages ( this one for the Empire Abbey article) don't reveal where the specific information is obtained. The website seems to have copiled information that's not otherwise available in the internet. So can the Mariners website be considered a reliable source? — Bellhalla ( talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), which I have managed to get on loan from my local library.
Mjroots (
talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)How much weight does research have that is paid by the manufacturer of a product when it comes to the safety of the product versus independent research. Is there a wikipedia policy on this? If there's sourced evidence that a study was paid by the industry, is it okay to purposely withhold that information to the reader? Who benefits from withholding the industrial sponsor, the industry or the public? In the article I'm contributing to, this is a regular issue among certain editors. How do other editors separate industrial propaganda from independent information and more so, is it important to make such a separation? Immortale ( talk) 17:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
external link; wikipedia article
Is this a reliable source regarding the legal requirements regarding disclosing information on the illnesses of top executives in "publicly-held" corporations? See first paragraph of "health concerns" in [ this version] of Steve Jobs. -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I found a source from the Galegroup Databases, and have provided the following citation for it (Which attempts to be as close as possible to the MLA style of citations):
(ref name= Diego_Perez) (in Spanish) Perez, Diego. “Genios: De Sudamerica salieron las maravillas del futbol.” El Pais (Montevideo) Mar. 2008. Gale Group Databases. 19 Jan. 2002. < http://infotrac.galegroup.com>.(/ref)
Of course, I've replaced the usual "<>" tag with the "()" in order for you to see the content within. The information is factual and can be found within the database. An editor has challenged the reliability of this source, and I would like to hear your opinions on the matter. Thank you in advance.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Intelligence Report is a national magazine published for many years by the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate crimes and other activities of white supremicist, nativist and "patriot" groups throughout the United States. Is it considered a reliable source on such issues? Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this website meets WP:RS. As I would like to use material from http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_dec_24/ ( an investigative journal type web video published by rocketboom ) for a WP:BLP. The subject is related to internet memes. Can they be used? AuricBlofeld ( talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In the Jason Scott case article, Anson Shupe's Agents of Discord (2006) is referenced 30 times. Of those 30 citations, 20 were used in a subsection entitled " The deprogramming". Of those 20, 17 are the only supporting reference for statements. Many of those statements are highly abrasive of Rick Ross (consultant)'s reputation, describing the incident in graphic detail. Even if the statements are true, the article needs to be presented in a way that represents the subject neutrally, in accordance with BLP stipulations.
However, the most concerning part of all of this, and the reason for my post here is the fact that Anson Shupe himself was called to the stand as an expert witness in the Jason Scott case, which illustrates a very obvious potential for interpreting related past events in his favor.
Now, it is clear that Anson Shupe has academic credentials in the religious field, and an impressive bibliography; but I think we should call into question his reliability for this instance, a case in which he most probably has a personal slant. Also notable is the fact that he is cited by and associated with CESNUR, an organization whose interests involve discrediting the "anti-cult" movement.
In addition, according to a paper by Stephen Kent published in Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998), Shupe's relevancy in the case is called into question:
When asked about how he gathered his evidence against CAN, Shupe admitted that he had never attended a CAN meeting, did not know the names of its officers, had not conducted formal research on the organization since 1987, and had not formally interviewed anyone on the "countercult" movement since 1979. Moreover, he had never subscribed to CAN's newsletter, although he "was able to obtain copies now and then from various people around the country" (Scott v. Ross, et.al., 1995a, 83-87).
← Spidern → 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to get some views on this link [7] and would like to know would it be considered a reliable source on a subject that is quite controversial. By following the links on the site I traced it back to the author’s web site. The author says that he lectures in the area of E-Learning, and has an “interest” in the period. It’s my opinion that he is not an historian and his site is a self published source. It would also be my view that while using the sources he cites would be acceptable as reliable sources, using his site would not? -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The claim is that Alex Macandrew, a PhD in physics, is not a reliable critic of Eric Lerner's book. I beg to differ. Can others opine?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Now, the claim is that Feuerbacher and Scranton, physicists/astronomers, are not reliable sources simply because they published in TalkOrigins Archive. I beg to differ again. Can others opine?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. | ” |
Both of these sources are "self-published" in a sense because they are done on-line. However, both sources are written by established experts in the relevant field previously published by reliable third-party publications. Furthermore, the sources are useful because they address this parochial and marginally notable book directly while referencing the broader context. Can we link to sources that explicate the larger context? Sure, but to remove these sources and to link to those sources is something of a WP:SYNTH violation since the synthesis is made by these sources explicitly. To act otherwise is explicitly Catch-22. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Could www.happycow.net be regarded as a reliable source for the eating habits of celebrities, specifically if they are vegetarian? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a dating service first; could articles in the "local scene" section be regarded as reliable sources? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 05:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I realize this may be an inappropriate question for this noticeboard, since it's a little more "is this edit acceptable?" than "is this source reliable?". If this is inappropriate, please let me know and accept my apologies.
I've attempted to cite this blog post[ [10]] as an example of media coverage of Oom Yung Doe. My edit was reverted, on the not-wholly-unreasonable grounds that blog postings aren't at all reliable for anything. However, because the topic is specifically what media coverage of Oom Yung Doe is like, and because the post is by a Seattle Spectator staffer on that paper's blog, I can see this one both ways.
Should this be considered a reasonable citation, or no? Subverdor ( talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, my question is regarding this source which was very recently added to Roxette discography to support the act's sales-figure of 45 million albums and 25 million singles. The source in question seems very much like a site created by Roxette's fans who post anything about the act that might catch attention regardless of whether the contents are taken from reliable sources. I have to add that just recently I removed numerous sales-figures from Roxette discography which were being supported by another unreliable source. I studied Roxette's Gold/Platinums by taking seven larger music markets including U.S., UK, German, French, Canadian, Dutch, Austria's and Swiss, and the total figure that I came up with does not suggest that they could have sold as many as 75 million records (even if one exaggerates it in order to include the sales within smaller markets) as the provided sources claims. Thanks. -- Harout72 ( talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I need a reality check ... For more than a year, the Freemasonry article has cited the OED for a definition of the term "Anti-Masonry" in our "Opposition to and criticism of Freemasonry" section. The use of this term and definition is now being challenged. Apparently, while previous versions of the OED (I have the 1979, two volume "Compact Edition") contained a definition of this term, the newest version (after 1989) omits it. The more recent version contains the related term, "Anti-Mason", but not the word "Anti-Masonry".
The challenger is now saying that we can not cite the 1979 version, as that is really just a reprint of the 1933 OED (as if that in some way makes the citation outdated or something). (see this dif. He insists that we must use the related term "Anti-Mason" instead (even though that is not what the section is discussing).
I agree that, if possible, we should use the most recent version of reference works... but if that version has dropped a word, is there anything wrong with going back to the most recent version that does contain it? I would think the OED (even one published in 1979) is going to be the most reliable source for the definition of an English word. Am I off base here? Blueboar ( talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could get some input about the reliability of a source for a discusion at [ [12]]. There is an argument that this is a reliable source [ [13]] inpite my having used the linked forum to ask the author about the issue of Obama's denomination here [ [14]]. In her reply, the author of the page admits she needs to update the page. In this one instance, would this be a reliable source for Obama's current denomination? Die4Dixie ( talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. My argument is that we follow Wikipedia's policy of not using a forum as a source of information, and that reliable sources are challenged with other reliable sources. And your argument that you "don't want to use the forum as a reliable source to use in mainspace editing" unnecessarily oversimplifies the issue because you are challenging the reliability of about.com, which might be used to challenge another source that you have "used in mainspace editing".
I can accept it if this noticeboard concludes that about.com in general is not reliable. But let's try to do it honestly without distorting my position or obfuscating the issues. Thank you.
Ward3001 (
talk) 21:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I would certainly not consider about.com to be a reliable source ... it is, however, a good place to start your background research and to locate reliable sources that (after you read them) might be used. Sort of like Wikipedia in fact. Blueboar ( talk) 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We've been here several times before with this, but we finally seem to be having a specific case worth looking at: Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Academic_freedom_section.
Brief background: the "academic sexologist" clan, including User:James Cantor whose boss is one of the principals in the debates ( Ray Blanchard of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory), wants to be able to cite the "controversial paper" by Alice Dreger to criticize their "enemies", the " transwoman" clan, and their friends (I'm a friend of Lynn Conway). I've tried to balance some of their outrageous stuff with a few words from the other side, citing commentaries in the same special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior on this topic. In the past, Cantor, in spite of his outrageous WP:COI, has pushed the idea that the editor Kenneth Zucker said that Dreger article was "peer reviewed" but that he took all comers for the commentaries (not quite true), and that therefore those have to be treated as self-published (an absurd stretch, in my opinion). Furthermore, he argues that if one of those authors is not among the academic sexologists, in the sense of not having published in a peer-reviewed journal on sexology, then they're not expert enough to have their "self-published" writings cited in wikipedia.
Now, Cantor and User:WhatamIdoing seem to be going even further, and objecting to citing Charles Moser (physician), a notable sexologist, as " not an expert on academic freedom," while Dreger " is demonstrably an expert on ethics and on the activism of sexual minority groups." One thing we can't deny: they've got balls!
I think it's about time for someone to push back a bit on this transparent bias based on conflict of interest. But for now, a simple opinion that if Dreger is "reliable" then, for opinions, so are the other articles in that special issue on the topic, would be helpful. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the Richard Tylman article and these edits: [15] [16] [17] [18] None of the sources provided in support of the subject’s advertising work includes mention of his name. Given this fact, I ask how it can be that they in any way support the assertion that he contributed artwork to these advertisements. A limited discussion of this matter is found on the article’s talk page [19]. 99.242.160.225 ( talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The above single purpose dynamic IP number 99.242.160.225 ( talk · contribs) is engaging in a disruptive WP:POINT campaign, clearly shown in the malignant nature of his/her edits, [20] [21] made via two separate IP ranges, the second one being 74.14.227.243 ( talk · contribs). There's nothing wrong with the references listed. But, lying and reverting of a well respected administrator from under the cover of anonimity is. -- Poeticbent talk 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The question of whether uncredited commercial art signed legibly or illegibly should be considered as a source is an issue I hope this board will address. I believe that a clearly identifiable signature should count - whether it includes the full name or not. However, there is still the matter of which ads here feature any signature at all. I didn’t notice any, but have said that I may have missed something. On the talk page, Poeticbent identifies one ad as printed with his signature. What about the others? Do they each feature his signature? Questions concerning these ads have not been answered. Piotrus, as the user who introduced this material to the article, you must surely know the answer. Are all of these ads signed?
There seems is a rush to silence queries posed by myself and others. I end my participation here and leave the matter for others to deal with if they so chose. 99.242.160.225 ( talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Are chambers of commerce reliable sources for a thumbnail description of the economy of a community, or are they not sufficiently independent? Specifically, I am considering using information from the lead paragraph of this web page to draft something more general and informative than the present Encino, Los Angeles, California#Economy section. I am a little concerned that the C of C does not cite its sources or indicate the timeliness of the statistics, but I wonder if it is a good enough basis for a couple general sentences. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see below a reply I posted on the talk:British Isles page with regard to the Scots Language Centre being a reliable source for the use of a Scots language term which (currently) appears on the British Isles article:
I have also included a reference from the Dictionary of the Scots Language, (see also "About the Dictionary of the Scots Language").
The references used on the British Isles article from the DSL and SLC are as follows:
"For "Breetish" see Dictionary of the Scots Language (DSL) & Scottish National Dictionary Supplement (1976) (SNDS). For use in term "Breetish Isles"' see Scots Language Centre website ("Show content as Scots")".
Q: Are these legitimate to use as examples of the Scots adjective "Breetish" and descriptive term "Breetish Isles"??? Endrick Shellycoat 21:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the UK news magazine Private Eye a reliable source for information, particularly on living persons, to use on Wikipedia?
Please note that I am talking about the factual sections at the start & end of the magazine (such as Hackwatch & In The City) and not the satire section in the middle.
My opinion - based on my observations over the past year - is that the factual sections of the Private Eye are a reliable source. The magazine's position is also strengthened by the fact that it has successfully fought off libel charges on several occasions. When mistakes are made it publishes clarifications/corrections in the immediately following issue.
I would be grateful to hear the views of more experienced Wikipedia editors who are also familiar with the magazine. Should we use Private Eye as a source when something is published in it, or should we first wait 2 weeks for the next issue, to see whether the article is corrected or clarified? -- Buyoof ( talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Story here (subscription required) by Wayne Madsen is claiming that the INS Dakar was deliberately sunk by the US Navy in retaliation for the USS Liberty Incident. I have some problems accessing the website as the firewall denies access, classifying it as "hate speech". The story has already been included by an editor in the INS Dakar article. Initial impressions is this would be fringe material and certainly seems conspiracy theory territory. Would appreciate input on the sources reliability by wiki standards. Justin talk 11:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This website: http://www.aspartame.info is a PR website for aspartame, being provided by Ajinomoto, a producer of aspartame. Is an (unsigned) opinion that is published on this website a reliable and verifiable source? The opinion cited in the Aspartame_controversy article has not been published anywhere else, while opinions from experts published in peer-reviewed journals are not accepted in the Aspartame_controversy article. Immortale ( talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
We have an editor who appears to be struggling with Wikipedia's basic requirements for Verifiability and No original research for some time. The editor, Posturewriter, has a known conflict of interest (he self-published a book outlining his novel medical ideas) and his apparent goal in editing Wikipedia is to share his personal ideas and knowledge with a wider audience. He has created an 'ideal version' in his userspace, and, despite knowing of strong opposition to it, he attempted to replace the existing article with his preferred version today.
The specific source in question is http://www.anapsid.org/, a website created and maintained by Melissa Kaplan. Most of the website is about caring for iguanas and other reptiles. She also posts on her website her current understanding of several diseases affecting her own health ( Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, and Lyme disease), which is the part that is at issue.
Her website is clearly self-published under Wikipedia's rules. Kaplan has no medical or veterinary qualifications, and she has not published anything except her website. She is simply a person interested in the subject because it affects her own daily life. She is therefore not a recognized expert in the relevant field.
The following four statements are sourced to a webpage titled "The disease of a thousand names" on Kaplan's website:
The question for editors at RSN is whether this self-published/non-expert source should be used to verify any assertions about medical ideas on Wikipedia, and specifically for these four statements. It is my opinion that this source does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards, and that the source must be removed (and with it, any statement that can't be sourced to something that does meet Wikipedia's standards). Does this seem like the appropriate application of Wikipedia's policies to the other editors here? (Please: even if it seems as cut-and-dried to you as it does to me, please respond with your view.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing; I have already responded to your ridiculous and offensive suggeston that Wikipedia should exclude the opinion of medical consumers when their page is compiled in co-operation with four doctors here [23] and here [24], as it is an extremely serious violation of NPOV principles. That webpage is also supported by the following references which list four or five synonyms in their introductions here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] and are used as refererences on the subpage here [25] Posturewriter ( talk) 07:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter
Reliable Sources Editors; I have considered your comments and would like you to know that if you want the Mellisa Kaplan page of CFS synonyms [26] removed as a source I will do so. However, let me first explain that there are more than 10 reliable sources to support that here [27], and that I was including a medical consumers input for NPOV purposes, and the list was reasonable according to my knowledge of the history of the syndrome. You might also like to consider that WhatamIdoing has previously argued aggressively that it was appropriate to use hatnote policy to add the title of a childrens fiction novel to the top of the page to give prominence to WhatamIdoings preferred label - Soldier’s Heart here [28] - and that when I asked for page numbers that were relevant to Da Costa’s syndrome Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing changed the subject to avoid criticism -see the full conversations and the last three paragraphs in the section here [29].
Please also note that as my contributions were being slab deleted from the Da Costa's syndrome page, someone else (not me) started anonymously adding similar information to the Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome page as seen in the history of edits from 31-12-07 here [30], and added a long list of medications as treatments. Nobody complained about the anonymity of the contributor, or the obvious sock puppet possibilities, or the obvious COI implications, and there were only five references to 9-4-07 when WhatamIdoing edited it here [31] and none of them were linked to the text. When I mentioned this I was told that WhatamIdoing had too many other pages to edit to spend time on it. However, since then only 2 more references have been added and only two have been linked to the text, which is an example of very sub-standard sourcing and editing. Please note that I have produced a subpage for Da Costa’s syndrome which has 60 numbered WP:MEDRS references with 400 links to the text which provides a far superior sourcing standard here [32]. My conclusion is that WhatamIdoing has a strong opinion here, and is not interested in sourcing policy, so much as using sourcing policy to disrupt my contributions for the purpose of maintaining control of content.
Please also note that at 15;15on 30-5-08 WhatamIdoing asked "Are you satisfied with the current list of labels" here [33] and it only contained five synonyms in the opening paragraph, and at 7:59 the next day 1-6-08, I added the Mellisa Kaplan list of 80, so it is quite likely that WhatamIdoing is arguing out of spite Posturewriter ( talk) 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter
Is Findagrave an appropriate link for External links? If this is not the appropriate place for this question, could somebody direct me? Thanks in advance, -- Tom 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at user Carl.bunderson edits in Haq movement article, this user try to insert only official government newspaper [www.gulfnews.com] point of view which cannot be considered reliable since it is used to make propaganda only about the country opposition-- 77.69.195.220 ( talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a source at the biography page of Cher, which claims that that Cher's single "Believe" has sold 10 million copies world wide. Personally, after checking her Certification-Awards in U.S., UK, Germany, France, Austria, The Netherlands, Sweden and Australia, I came to the conclusion that the sales of "Believe" could not have surpassed 7 million units world wide. The source was tagged as a dead link for many months; however, was found through a web archive just recently. In my opinion, this cannot be regarded as reliable at all, but I need to be sure before I remove it along with the statement which it supports. I would really be appreciative if someone could comment on this. Thanks.-- Harout72 ( talk) 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
But what the Certification-Awards suggest (which I am demonstrating above) should not be viewed as someone's opinion, those are facts. I listed music markets which pretty much should cover 80% of the sales on the single "Believe"- U.S.Sales=1 million, UK=1.2 million, Germany=1 million, France=750,000, Australia=210,000, Sweden=90,000, The Netherlands=80,000, Austria=40,000. Then we can simply exaggerate the total number (which is about 4.5 or 4.7 million) slightly in order to include sales coming from smaller markets. All in all, the figure should not exceed 7 million or 7.5 million in the best case scenario.-- Harout72 ( talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If a review of an album which originally appeared in a magazine such as New Musical Express or Q is not available online, is it acceptable to reference it with a Metacritic listing.....? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Would the following count towards establishing notability for Dave Carlock?
-- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Also:
-- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war going on at Gareth Penn involving the removal of a number of what appear to be credible sources. This entry, for instance:
Portrait of the Artist as a Mass Murderer drew national media attention, and led New York Press reporter Alan Cabal to arrange an interview with Penn that never took place. In a book review of Robert Graysmith's Zodiac Unmasked, Cabal wrote that his efforts to meet Penn were a "a run down the rabbit-hole of Northern California weirdness."
...came from a NY Press book review here, written by journalist Alan Cabal: http://www.nypress.com/article-5757-graysmiths-zodiac-unmasked.html.
A letter to the editor from the same source, the NY Press at http://www.nypress.com, was also deleted.
Why is the NY Press not a credible source? I don't edit enough Wiki articles to know and would appreciate any assistance. Scijournalist ( talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) To address a single issue: The "letter to the editor from the same source, the NY Press" is considered self-published, and unless the author can be demonstrated to be an expert on the subject of the letter, then it cannot be used. If the author is an expert on the specific subject, then the letter can be used in certain limited ways. Please read the relevant section of the policy for more information. If you believe the person to be an expert in the relevant field, and there are still concerns, then please start a new item on this page that describes in detail how you want to use it. (This is usually done by pasting an entire paragraph with the ref onto this page.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's clear that Cabal says "The fellow I met turned out to be an impostor, a shill", but it's also clear from the context that he means Penn was an imposter - that it became clear during the evening they spent together that Penn's claims to be an expert were all sham. He's not saying that he met some unknown person who was pretending to be Penn! It's explained that the meeting was set up after long correspondence, and he later refers to Penn's own account of "his meeting with me". It's surely a legitimate source for Cabal's opinion of Penn. Paul B ( talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have two episode lists that I am currently looking to bring to WP:FLC. I use the source cal.syoboi.jp as a reference for the airdates of the series as I cannot find an official source that confirms these dates. That being said, a peer review of one of the lists recently brought up the point that cal.syoboi.jp may not be reliable. While I would like to use this source (due to the lack of any other sources), I also would like to only be using Reliable Sources. I have no experience in determining if this is a reliable source or not, so aid would be appreciated. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the reliabilty of WikiFur to verify information about conventions? See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of furry conventions. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Questionable sources regarding:
unsourced commentary by onyxig
"It is important to note that although Republika Srpska is a quite young entity, its history, and the History of Bosnia in general, has begun centuries ago and the geographic region on which the entity currently resides has been deeply affected by numerous wars from medieval ages, Ottoman Empire occupation to WW1, WW2, and finally the Bosnian war." [36]
unviewable source article, undue weight
"The leading Bosnian Serb party, the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), called on other political parties in Republika Srpska to organize a referendum on police reform in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The SNSD said the referendum should give a clear picture on whether the Bosnian Serb police should be dismissed or not in the process reforms under which a single police force is to be created on the state level.[21] "I do expect that the answer of most of citizens of Republika Srpska would be no," Rajko Vasić, member of the SNSD leadership said. He also said the party, which won exactly half the seats in the National Assembly of Republika Srpska on October 1, 2006, would suggest the referendum on police reform as an issue to be discussed at the first next session of the entity's parliament. Earlier last year the leader of the SNSD and the current RS Prime Minister Milorad Dodik said he would be ready to sacrifice negotiations with the European Union on the eventual integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the Union, if the RS police is to be abolished as part of the police reform on Bosnia's state-level." [37]
- PRODUCER ( TALK) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know if tabloid magazines, in this case: People Magazine, are considered 'reliable sources'. There is a quote used from People Magazine for the Biography of a living person that I would like to have deleted from this person's page.
The article written by People Magazine appears to be unresearched, and further more this article is not a 'neutral point of view' - most clearly because it only includes information and the perspective from one side of a dispute between two people.
I wasn't sure if I was supposed to give the actual example in this forum - let me know if that's appropriate. Zoegolightly ( talk) 20:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Are The Skinny (magazine) (some information about it here) and The Aquarian Weekly reliable sources? They obviously seem to be, but I would like to be sure whether they really are. Thanks everybody for answering :)-- LYKANTROP ✉ 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Skinny seems like a ragtag thing that is dumped in pubs for bored people to pick up. It doesn't look RS to me. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the Freedom of Mind page on Chung Moo Doe[ [44]] a reliable source? Subverdor ( talk) 06:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
While this paper is by an academic who might have otherwise have qualifications, this particular paper (apparently published) is extremely problematic as any kind of reliable source, especially as a cite in Scientology as a state-recognized religion where it was used around 20 times as a 3rd party RS ref:
Someone will probably jump in that Derek Davis is an academic with many many page hits in GoogleBooks. So what? This paper is badly referenced and sourced. Not everything by an academic is automatically RS on Wikipedia. AndroidCat ( talk) 09:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Here some publishing background:
Lit Verlag is a German academic publisher, with bases in London, Hamburg, Berlin, Vienna, Zurich and Münster. They cooperate internationally with Transaction Publishers (USA), Palgrave Macmillan (USA) and James Currey (UK). Zeitdiagnosen is not a journal, but a series of books on prominent topics in sociology and political science.
Here is a write-up on the author, Derek H. Davis.
Derek H. Davis, B.A., M.A., J.D., Ph.D., is a graduate of Baylor University and Baylor Law School and holds a Master of Arts in Church-State Studies from Baylor University and a Doctor of Philosophy in Humanities from the University of Texas at Dallas. He is Professor of Political Science and the Director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, which offers M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Church-State Studies, conducts research and publishes books on church-state relations and religious liberty in national and international contexts, maintains the largest research library in the world pertaining to religious liberty and church-state relations, and sponsors conferences and lectureships on various church-state themes.
In addition to serving as editor of the award-winning Journal of Church and State, Dr. Davis is a fellow and director of the International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief, serves on the advisory council of the Interfaith Religious Liberty Foundation, is on the advisory board of The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, is a member of the Religious Liberty Council of the National Council of Churches U.S.A., is listed in Who’s Who in American Law and Who’s Who in the World, and presently serves as Special Counsel to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. In 2000, he was awarded the Human Rights Achievement Award by Freedom magazine. He is also a former Baylor football captain and all-conference receiver.
He is the author of Original Intent: Chief Justice Rehnquist & the Course of American Church-State Relations (1991 by Prometheus Books), and Religion and the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: Contributions to Original Intent (2000 by Oxford University Press). He is the editor, coeditor, or coauthor of twelve additional books, including The Role of Religion in the Making of Public Policy (1991), Legal Deskbook for Administrators of Independent Colleges and Universities (1993), Problems and Conflicts Between Law and Morality in a Free Society (1993), Genesis and the Millennium: An Essay on Religious Pluralism in the Twenty-first Century by Bill Moyers (2000), Welfare Reform and Faith-Based Organizations (1999), and Religious Liberty in Northern Europe in the Twenty-first Century (2000). He has also published more than eighty articles in various law reviews, academic journals, magazines, and other periodicals.
His frequent magazine, radio, and television interviews have included those for Time Magazine, First Things, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, the Fox News Network, CBS News, and ABC News. In recent years he has been called upon by the U.S. Congress, the Texas legislature, and United Nations emissaries for testimony relating to legal measures needed to protect religious liberty in national and international settings. He has lectured extensively before academic, public, and religious audiences on a wide range of topics including religious liberty (national and international), church-state relations (ancient, medieval, and modern), human rights, ethnic cleansing, the political role of Christianity and other religions, civil religion, nontraditional religions, religious dimensions of the American founding, law and morality, law and religion, and religion and education.
Gerhard Besier, the editor of the book this appeared in, is a Protestant Christian theologian and historian. He runs the Hannah-Arendt Institute for Research into Totalitarianism at Dresden University. He has been controversial in Germany for taking the view that Scientology should be recognised as a religion in Germany, as it is in the United States and many other countries.
While Davis' paper/book chapter does contain a reference to Wikipedia, which is obviously not citable here, it is the only paper I am aware of whose subject matter correponds exactly to the topic of our article, "Scientology as a state-recognized religion". Jayen 466 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Looks good to me. I doubt that AndroidCat will go through the sensational books and articles commonly cited as sources in Scientology articles and vet the sourcing to this degree. Or to any degree. I wish he would. The argument that we would discount this because it uses primary sources that we have disallowed here is especially specious, this is exactly how a primary source becomes a "secondary source". -- Justallofthem ( talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone here migh take a look over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources and add their 2 cents where clarification is needed. Thanks. SharkD ( talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I have two questions. Sorry if this has been asked already, 1. Are Alternative News Weeklies, such as those published by Village Voice Media, or local weeklies, such as the Bay Area's 'East Bay Express' considered reliable? 2. Also, is anything that is not Op/Ed, such as an arts interview written by a stringer for national publication like the San Francisco Chronicle, considered reliable?
Uwishiwazjohng ( talk) 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
An article came up at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests that was using The Chambers Guides as a reference. Chamber's claim that the rankings and editorial comment about lawyers are independent and objective. You don't have to look at many entries to come to the conclusion that they are anything but. Does anyone know if this is actually a paid-for directory listing, it certainly reads like it. SpinningSpark 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I am curious of other editors opinions about an instance where two editors are reading, seemingly, the identical book but a specific sentence occurs in one editors copy of the book and that sentence is missing from the other editors copy of the book. Ongoing discussion here [49]. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanna expand on Brown Sugar (album), but i'm not sure if dis a reliable, propa reference to use. MusicianGuide: D'Angelo What do u think?
Dan56 ( talk) 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
On The Chaser APEC pranks in the "The Chaser's response" section, there is an entire section cited by the radio interview on Source 44. The problem is that the website containing the media file is not dead linked. Since then there has been two tags added questioning the reliability of the source.
Now I listened to that radio interview, and while I couldn't possibly remember it, I know that all that information is correct when it was written. I suggested this source on the talk page to another editor (Jasewese) who then wrote that section and sourced it.
Now while archive.org does store the website, the media file dosen't play. So it is probably lost.
Is there a way to get rid of the citation questions around that source. The Windler talk 20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little worried about this and would like community input. I don't think that these sorts of projects can be considered reliable sources, these sites are not fact checked or peer reviewed, as is normal for sources to be considered reliable on Wikipedia. These sources were originally all included at Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) Examples include:
I'd like to know what the community thinks about the reliability of these sorts of sources, both for specific sources and more generally. Thanks for any help in advance. Alun ( talk) 10:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There are, as mentioned above, at least 5 quite different types of source being questioned here. Will anyone actually bother to comment on each one in a clear way rather than just making vague generalizations? The type of information needing sourcing is simple. It is about connecting a DNA test result with a pedigree, or in the worst case scenario, just about saying that someone has made the connection. It is not about developing a new way of testing DNA, or highly complicated statistics.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is turning into a repetitive morass that is beginning to verge on personal attacks rather than a discussion of the policy, and how it applies. So far we have one editor, Andrew Lancaster, who claims that the material is not violating original research, and three editors, Wobble, Dahliarose, and Itsmejudith who are questioning this claim. Wobble and Dahliarose it seems to me have laid out there reasoning quite clearly and have begun repeating themselves (which only invits others to start skipping over what they wrote). Likewise, Andrew Lancaster seems to be repeating himself (with the same effect). Given that all three have presented their arguments at length, perhaps we can see what other editors think at this point? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, there are only two criticisms or questions that have been raised about Andrew Lancaster's edits:
As I understand it, Andrew Lancaster's response to the first question is that these sites are reliable because lots of people use them. If I have inaccurately or incompletely summarized his position, I would ask that he provide an accurate and complete summary.
I read through the material twice and did not find a response to the question about SYNTH. Perhaps Wobble or Dahliarose could provide three specific examples of violations of SYNTH that Andrew Lancaster could respond to concisely? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Slr, Dahliarose, Andrew, Peregrine and Itsmejudith, I draw your attention to
my observations regarding the problems with Andrews use of information. Here I lay out why I think the sources are not reliable. I also comment about other concerns I have with the use that these sources have been put to, but that's an independent question. I hope this clarifies things. Cheers.
Alun (
talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Andrew, Could you please refrain from quoting back all my comments out of context and twisting my meaning. Could you also refrain from making personal attacks. One of the core policies is Wikipedia:No original research. As I have already stated, my view is that surname projects are undertaking original research. Pedigrees need to be checked, DNA results are put into matching groups, and the results are then analysed. This is not a simple process. The act of linking together pedigrees and DNA results to infer the haplotype of a famous person is a complex process. There is also the question as to whether or not sufficient samples have been taken to prove a specific point. How can this process be anything other than original research? No one is criticising surname projects for the work they do. There are however now literally thousands of DNA surname projects. There are in excess of 5000 surname projects at Family Tree DNA. There are many more at http://dna.ancestry.com. There also others at http://www.dnaheritage.com. We should not be discussing the merits or otherwise of all these surname projects on a case by case basis, which seems to be what you are suggesting. Some DNA project results are of course available on public websites, though the ancestry results can only be accessed via an Ancestry account, and the DNA heritage pages are very sparse. The web pages are compiled either by the project manager or by a team of people from the project who all have a particular interest in the surname. These are therefore self-published results. They are only checked by people within the surname project, and not by an impartial third party. Wikipedia polices have already devised a way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff. The simple test is whether or not these surname projects have been referenced in third-party publications or if results have been published in peer-reviewed journals. In other words it is not up to the Wikipedia editor to decide which projects are notable and reliable based on their own perceptions of what the outside world thinks. It is a decision made by a third party. It makes no difference whether the project admin is Andrew Lancaster, Spencer Wells or Brian Sykes. I have never stated that reliability is the priority. The priority is publication in third-party publications. Dahliarose ( talk) 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Alun, Dahliarose, and Andrew Lancaster. Above I commented that this discussion had descended into a morass of circular counter-arguments and that you need to let others comment. Since that time a good deal more comment has been added - by the three of you. Only four lines by one other user. This has to stop. You three are abusing this page. This page is meant to solicit the views of outside parties. Instead, you are using it simply to continue conflicts among yourselves that belong on article pages or your own user pages. Here you should summarize the question as concisely as possible, and allow others to comment. If you feel that what you have already written is insufficient to lay out the issue at question, well, that only means you were unready to bring it to this page and this post is premature. Otherwise, all you have done is to hijack this page to air your on views. That is not what this page is for. If you wish to continue arguing with one another, please do so on your respective user pages. Leave this space for other editors to comment on this conflict, and wait patiently until you discover either that (1) no one gives a damn, probably because your petty bickering demands more attention from any outside party than well-intentioned editors owe any query on this page or (2) enough other editors have wieghed in constructively to give guidance at the relevant articles.
There is nothing more for the three of you to say here. If you continue to abuse this page just to continue an argument tht does not belong here, I will put a cap on the discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Many ethnic group pages such as the Ossetians page have used Joshua Project to cite their population count in various countries. This site measseures the amount of Christian evangelism that is present among people groups around the world, at the same time they give the population count of the people groups in each country. Is this source reliable enough to back up these population counts? -- Ukabia ( talk) 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The Scientology article has a prominent display box linking to a Wikinews article entitled "Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting" here. The Wikinews article in question is original research and appears to be slanted.
As far as I can tell, reports linking the 4chan community and Anonymous (group) to the shooting appeared, presumably quite independently of the Church, in the mainstream Scandinavian press: article in Dagbladet, with a 4chan screenshot, article in Aftenposten. The Wikinews article however states that –
The accusations appear to be part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called "fair-game". The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs.
This appears untenable, given that the allegations appeared in the mainstream press.
We have sisterlinks to Wikinews and other projects at the bottom of the Scientology article, which is standard. I feel that should suffice, and that Wikinews articles, and this one in particular, are not sufficiently reliable sources to be prominently displayed in the main body of an article. Views? Jayen 466 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
is the deactivated gun collector's association website, located at http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/prod01.htm, to be considered a reliable source to state on Glock pistol that, as for the Glock 18, "Most of the other characteristics are similar to the Glock 17, although the slide, frame, and certain fire-control parts of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with other Glock models." There was an edit war over whether the cybershooters.org(The Deactivated Gun Collector's Association) source is reliable. the cybershooters source is not being used currently in the article, so the current version of the article does not have a source to accurately reflect the detail of the interchangeability claim, but an editor has proposed adding that source. the current source being used http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html is probably more reliable than cybershooters.org, but it lacks detail about the interchangeability, as the source only states "For security reasons, the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." so the cybershooters.org source does provide more detailed info, but its reliability is unknown. could be it used to source the current detail? or should the janes source be used with wording restricted to what janes actually says Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
for what it's worth, the "deactivated gun collector's association" source appears to be a review about a deactivated version of the gun. could that (reasonably) affect the reliability of the review? on the website, it says deactivating a gun "includes modifications to the barrel, bolt, cylinder, slide, firing pin and sometimes the receiver or frame of the firearm." it would seem to me that any modification to the particular gun the reviewer has might differ in some questionable way in comparison to a working one. the website doesn't exactly look like it was designed by professional gun reviewers, either. not to say that professional gun reviewers are HTML wizards, but it's a weak looking website with questionable oversight, no claimed authorship, and about broken guns. Theserialcomma ( talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The current first sentence in the Cloud computing article attempts to provide a very brief definition of the article title. However the three references currently given for this definition comprise a website news article, a blog piece and a white paper. All are dated December 2008 or January 2009 and contain phrases that are suspiciously similar to ones that were already used in the same WP article around the same dates. It seems to me that these are almost certainly indirect self-references (i.e. the use of a source which has in turn used the same WP article as a source). However the editor who cited these refs doesn't seem to see a problem with this (a discussion can be found on the talk page under the "Intro" heading). A third opinion would be useful here. Thanks. Letdorf ( talk) 01:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC).
The document "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu (2007) is being used as a source in a number of articles including Artillery and the (currently afd) Timeline_of_modern_Muslim_scientists_and_engineers to support the claims that Muslims invented "the first" manned rocket, submarine, and torpedo, among other things. The document has been linked at [86] ; My initial impression is that non-neutral pro-Turkish bias pervades this paper, and wonder if it should be usable as a source.
Dialectric ( talk) 17:33, 23 January 2009 (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.
This has moved beyond the topic of this noticeboard. The sources probably are reliable, but unclear or misunderstood. It is not suitable to add criticism based on original research, but it remains an editorial decision if the sources are useful and presented with due weight. Please take the discussion about the issues back to the proper talk pages. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having some trouble with editors posting claims by embassies about numbers of immigrants (for instance, Italian Embassy in Brazil claims there are 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent, which is, well, crazy; Lebanese Embassy in Brazil claims 7 million Brazilians are of Lebanese descent, which is much crazier; Japanese Embassy in Brasil claims 1.5 million Brazilians of Japanese descent, while the official Brazilian statistics bureau, the IBGE says there are only about 760,000 people of "yellow race" in Brazil).
What is worse, people defend such absurds blindly, and think that because an Embassy is a governmental entity, it cannot possibly be wrong. What can be done about this? Ninguém ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if there were other sources directly claiming the contrary, it would be easier. But the fact is, besides direct knowledge (I live here, I know the claims are exaggerated), I only have indirect evidence (the claimed figure for descendants doesn't match the actual data of immigrant arrivals; for instance, only some 100,000 Lebanese arrived in Brazil; they would need to be rabbits, not Lebanese, to turn into 6 million people in less than a century), and the other poster thinks that making such conclusion is "original research" and is not allowed, so he systematically reverses any edit contradicting the Embassy claims... I'm trying to discuss in the Talk Page, but it is not too easy. It's the White Brazilian article, by the way.
Thank you for your interest! Ninguém ( talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it is original research to do that, then I think Wikipedia is going to be a failing project. There simply aren't 25 million Italian Brazilians, and much less 6 million Lebanese Brazilian. Such "data" are fantasies; if they cannot be debunked, then Wikipedia is going to be a collection of memes and factoids. :(
No, I don't think the embassies are being biased. They are merely repeating "sexy" unsourced information. They do not conduct demographic research. That is the problem, not a supposed bias.
I tried an edit on the basis of adding that the Embassy data seem incompatible with the IBGE data on immigration, but it was reversed as "vandalism".
Do governments have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It depends on what. The Italian Embassy data on visa are probably accurate, I would have no problem using them. Visas are their business. Their data on oriundi certainly aren't; demography, after all, is not their business. The Central Bank data on the amount of circulating money is quite certainly very accurate. Their data on false money probably isn't. And so on. Generally speaking, I would trust IBGE information; if they don't know data, they state it. If they say 1.5 million Italian immigrants came to Brazil, then probably this is a quite approximate figure. Immigration was legal, even subsidized by government, there is no reason to think about illegal Italians in Brazil.
Thanks anyway. Ninguém ( talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not with different organisations using different inclusion criteria. The problem is organisation that do not conduct demographic research at all being cited as "sources" of demographic "data". Can it be called data if there is no research to reach them?
I have found a nice source to support my argument. Unhappily it is in Portuguese, and I can't find an English version, but it is serious academic research:
[vol14_n1e2_1997_3artigo_51_71.pdf (Objeto application/pdf) A Participação da Imigração na Formação da População Brasileira]
Here is its abstract:
The present study used a simple linear model to estimate the participation of immigration in the formation of Brazilian population. The results showed that between 12 and 24% (most probably 18%) of the Brazilian population has immigrant origin. These numbers indicate that immigration has more importance in the formation of Brazilian population than is usually assumed.
See, this source is not trying to downplay the role of immigration. On the contrary, it is arguing that "immigration has more importance in the formation of Brazilian population than is usually assumed", so it is indirectly stating that the academic consensus "usually assumes" lower figures for descendents of immigrants. Even then, and even considering the maximum (24%) the given by the source, it is clear that the claims of the Italian and Lebanese Embassy are extremely exaggerated, and cannot be both possibly true: 25 million is 15% of the population, and 10 million (which is the number claimed for all people of Arab descent) is 6%. Adding them, this gives 21% - and would mean that the sum of all other immigrant origins - Portuguese, German, Polish, Spanish, Japanese - would be of only 3%. But just the Germans are about 5 million, or 3%. And they are just the fourth more important group of immigrants, behind the Italian, the Portuguese, and the Spanish...
Thanks for your patience. Ninguém ( talk) 18:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course. I think the most relevant parts are, first, page 57-58, where he discusses the rate of return of immigrants to Brazil. He advances four different hypoteses, the first being unrealistic high, and the fourth unrealistic low (ie, that immigrants to Brazil never went back to their countries of origin). Then, on pages 59-60, he applies the criteria he had previously discussed and comes up with tables of estimatives for the POI (Population of Immigrant Origin); those estimatives are quite lower than what the claims of the Embassies imply (for instance, his "unrealistic high" estimate would situate the POI at about 25%, which is some 42 million. If there were 25 million Italians and 10 million Arabs, this would mean that the sum of immigrants of all other origins - Portuguese, German, Spanish, Polish, etc. would be of at most 7 million. While we know that each of those groups are by far more populous than the Arab Brazilians).
I have a more general question about sources and original research. If a source claims that some spacecraft traveled from here to Jupiter in 30 minutes, it is absolutely indispensable to find a source stating that it didn't? Is it original research to simply state that this seems impossible, due to the fact that it implies faster than light travel? Ninguém ( talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the problem is that I'm not grasping one of the plausible interpretations of "of X descent". Evidently, there is intermarriage, and some people are of "double descent". I myself am of double descent. But this intermarriage has always predominantly been between "Brazilian Brazilians" and immigrants of other origin, and much less often between people of, say, Italian origin and Polish origin. Those exist, but they are a small minority. If for no other reason, because the regions of Italian immigration (São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul highlands) were different from the regions of German immigration (Rio Grande do Sul valleys of the Jacuí, Sinos and Caí), which in turn are different from the regions of Polish immigration, and so on.
But even then, Judicael Clevelário's figures of 42 million people of immigrant origin are, according to him, an unrealistic maximum. His "reasonable" figure is 18%, which would be, for the year 2000, about 30 million people. It's highly unrealistic to suppose that, of 30 million people of immigrant origin, 25 million of them would be of Italian origin, even considering intermarriage and despising the evidence that intermarriage between immigrants of different origin is not very common.
And one should take into account that Clevelário is revising the figures upwards. More traditional demographers (who Clevelário cites in the beginning of this study), such as Hugon, Levy, Beltrão, Mortara, Cortes, Zagonel, Graham & Merrick, would give even smaller figures.
Evidently, besides, what is meant by "Italian Brazilian" is not people who have a drop of "Italian blood". It is people who, to some level, acknowledge themselves as "of Italian descent". Otherwise the whole issue becomes impossible to discuss, and we should be content with saying that "many" Brazilians have some Italian descent, but it is impossible to calculate how many (Many of the "Portuguese" original settlers do have Maghrebi ancestors; does this make them "Arab Brazilians" or "Berber Brazilians", when they do not in any way consider themselves of Arab or Berber descent? Many "Portuguese" settlers, especially those from Azores, have Dutch blood. Are they "Dutch Brazilians"?)
And finally, in any way, if within a population of 93 million White Brazilians only 42 million are of immigrant descent (and this already implies despising the possibility of non-Whites of immigrant descent), we then have still 51 million White Brazilians of Portuguese colonial descent. Seems to me that - even disconsidering that many of those who are of immigrant descent are also of Portuguese colonial descent- people of Portuguese descent are the majority; am I wrong?
I'm not against citing the Lebanese Embassy saying that there are 6 million Lebanese Brazilians and 10 million Arab Brazilians. I'm for saying that the Lebanese Embassy says this, but that the Lebanese Embassy does not conduct demographic research, that the Brazilian Census does not research ethnicity, that only about 100,000 Lebanese and Syrians immigrated to Brazil, and that if there are today 6 million Brazilians of Lebanese descent, this implies a quite extraordinary growth rate among Lebanese Brazilians (and this probably needs sources, and good sources, since it is a quite extraordinary claim).
Thank you for your interest and patience. Ninguém ( talk) 13:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You claim IBGE is the only reliable source about demography of Brazil. Then, IBGE itself claims that the White Brazilian population only started to grow as a result of the massive entries of immigrants in the late 19th century [88]
"Os dados disponíveis mostram que em 1872, data do primeiro recenseamento nacional, a população de cor preta e parda alcançava 58% do total (..)O segundo censo nacional, realizado em 1890, já no período republicano, mostra, como resultado da maciça imigração de origem européia incentivada e subsidiada pelo Estado, que o percentual de população preta e parda tinha diminuído para 47%. Meio século mais tarde, os dados do Censo Demográfi co 1940 indicam a continuidade desta queda para menos de 36% de pretos e pardos, quando o percentual de brancos alcança 63,5%. A crise fi nanceira de 1929 e a eclosão da Segunda Grande Guerra 10 anos depois, entretanto, adiaram sine die a continuidade do processo imigratório."
The IBGE reports, in Portuguese, that the majority of Brazil's population was composed of people of African descent (both black abd brown) and the White population only became the majority as a result of the late 19th century European immigration.
Brazil received only 500,000 European (Portuguese) settlers during the Colonial era, mostly men. Many of them mixed with Africans and Amerindians, and their descendants are mainly non-white. On the other hand, Brazil received over 5 million Europeans after independence. [89]
Then, to claim that most white Brazilians are descendants of this small group of 500,000 Portuguese men who settled Brazil (and largely mixed if African and Amerindian females), and that descendants of the over 5 million Europeans who arrived from 1820 to 1970 are a minority, is a complete nonsense.
I know you are since the beggining trying to prove that the vast majority of White Brazilians have colonial Portuguese roots, since you already reported your grandparents are "Colonial Portuguese" [90] and then you even claimed that people from Calabria in Italy may not be considere Italian (where did you take this theory from? If people from Calabria are not italians, what are they? Japanese or Chinese?)
Moreover, you are also claiming the Portuguese have large amounts of Arab North-African admixture. Where did you take this new theory from? Did you read article Portuguese people? There are many genetic resources that found that the Portuguese have a quite insignificant Arab/Berber admixture, since their ancestry is mainly traces to 40,000 years ago humans beings that settled Iberia.
You use so many theories, impossible theories. I ask you to read carefully all the rules of Wikipedia, because theories are not allowed here, I'm sorry. Opinoso ( talk) 14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Opinoso, if you want to discuss Brazilian demography, then you should do it at the White Brazilians Talk Page. If you want to discuss here, then you should discuss whether Embassies are reliable sources of demographic information. You are doing exactly the opposite: discussing the content of the article here, and making claims about the reliability of Embassies in the Talk Page.
In the Talk Page, you stated the following:
However, I'm pretty sure the Italian Embassy does have access to all these informations, so they are able to calculate how many Brazilians have ancestors who immigrated from Italy. Then, Ninguém, you are not allowed to calculate yourself the figures, but the Italian Embassy is.
If you are so sure of that, then you certainly do have some evidence that Embassies do that. For everything I know, they don't. They do not research data, they do not have demographers among their staff, and they depend on other sources to make statements like that.
Now, if you are right, and I am desperate, they there should be no reason to fear my messages to others. The fact that this disturbs you only shows that you are not as sure as you think you are. And frankly, it makes my point: you do not want other people who understand Portuguese to read or - God forbid - edit the articles you "own". That way, you think, you will be able to spread disinformation at will, like "no one in Rio Grande do Sul 'speaks' gracias" or "people in Rio Grande do Sul speak Portuguese with a Spanish accent". This is the reason you personal talk page is full of insult exchanges with other Brazilians - its your way to make it unbearable to them to try and contribute to "your" articles. And this, in turn, is the reason you have just tried to hide your personal talk page. Ninguém ( talk) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and History of Portugal#Moorish rule and the Reconquista. Good grief. Ninguém ( talk) 16:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
On more thing. Opinoso's User Page in the Portuguese Wikipedia was recently vandalised. Can an admin protect his page here, before it gets vandalised too, and he takes the opportunity to accuse me of doing it? Ninguém ( talk) 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Caughey
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cohen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CohenLIfeSituations
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).White
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wood2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hurst
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).yesteryear
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
MacLean1944
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wooley3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).titleOMIM - ORTHOSTATIC INTOLERANCE
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).lu
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Harrisons
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).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 20 | ← | Archive 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 |
I have seen the website Mariners, particularly its 'Empire' ship section increasingly used as one reference for ship articles, like SS Empire Abbey (to pick a fairly recent example). The index page lists sources consulted, but the sub pages ( this one for the Empire Abbey article) don't reveal where the specific information is obtained. The website seems to have copiled information that's not otherwise available in the internet. So can the Mariners website be considered a reliable source? — Bellhalla ( talk) 18:21, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: |first=
missing |last=
(
help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link), which I have managed to get on loan from my local library.
Mjroots (
talk) 20:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)How much weight does research have that is paid by the manufacturer of a product when it comes to the safety of the product versus independent research. Is there a wikipedia policy on this? If there's sourced evidence that a study was paid by the industry, is it okay to purposely withhold that information to the reader? Who benefits from withholding the industrial sponsor, the industry or the public? In the article I'm contributing to, this is a regular issue among certain editors. How do other editors separate industrial propaganda from independent information and more so, is it important to make such a separation? Immortale ( talk) 17:13, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
external link; wikipedia article
Is this a reliable source regarding the legal requirements regarding disclosing information on the illnesses of top executives in "publicly-held" corporations? See first paragraph of "health concerns" in [ this version] of Steve Jobs. -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 17:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
I found a source from the Galegroup Databases, and have provided the following citation for it (Which attempts to be as close as possible to the MLA style of citations):
(ref name= Diego_Perez) (in Spanish) Perez, Diego. “Genios: De Sudamerica salieron las maravillas del futbol.” El Pais (Montevideo) Mar. 2008. Gale Group Databases. 19 Jan. 2002. < http://infotrac.galegroup.com>.(/ref)
Of course, I've replaced the usual "<>" tag with the "()" in order for you to see the content within. The information is factual and can be found within the database. An editor has challenged the reliability of this source, and I would like to hear your opinions on the matter. Thank you in advance.-- [|!*//MarshalN20\\*!|] ( talk) 02:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Intelligence Report is a national magazine published for many years by the Southern Poverty Law Center which tracks hate crimes and other activities of white supremicist, nativist and "patriot" groups throughout the United States. Is it considered a reliable source on such issues? Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 01:59, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this website meets WP:RS. As I would like to use material from http://www.rocketboom.com/rb_08_dec_24/ ( an investigative journal type web video published by rocketboom ) for a WP:BLP. The subject is related to internet memes. Can they be used? AuricBlofeld ( talk) 16:12, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
In the Jason Scott case article, Anson Shupe's Agents of Discord (2006) is referenced 30 times. Of those 30 citations, 20 were used in a subsection entitled " The deprogramming". Of those 20, 17 are the only supporting reference for statements. Many of those statements are highly abrasive of Rick Ross (consultant)'s reputation, describing the incident in graphic detail. Even if the statements are true, the article needs to be presented in a way that represents the subject neutrally, in accordance with BLP stipulations.
However, the most concerning part of all of this, and the reason for my post here is the fact that Anson Shupe himself was called to the stand as an expert witness in the Jason Scott case, which illustrates a very obvious potential for interpreting related past events in his favor.
Now, it is clear that Anson Shupe has academic credentials in the religious field, and an impressive bibliography; but I think we should call into question his reliability for this instance, a case in which he most probably has a personal slant. Also notable is the fact that he is cited by and associated with CESNUR, an organization whose interests involve discrediting the "anti-cult" movement.
In addition, according to a paper by Stephen Kent published in Skeptic Magazine (Vol. 6, No. 3, 1998), Shupe's relevancy in the case is called into question:
When asked about how he gathered his evidence against CAN, Shupe admitted that he had never attended a CAN meeting, did not know the names of its officers, had not conducted formal research on the organization since 1987, and had not formally interviewed anyone on the "countercult" movement since 1979. Moreover, he had never subscribed to CAN's newsletter, although he "was able to obtain copies now and then from various people around the country" (Scott v. Ross, et.al., 1995a, 83-87).
← Spidern → 04:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I would like to get some views on this link [7] and would like to know would it be considered a reliable source on a subject that is quite controversial. By following the links on the site I traced it back to the author’s web site. The author says that he lectures in the area of E-Learning, and has an “interest” in the period. It’s my opinion that he is not an historian and his site is a self published source. It would also be my view that while using the sources he cites would be acceptable as reliable sources, using his site would not? -- Domer48 'fenian' 19:51, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The claim is that Alex Macandrew, a PhD in physics, is not a reliable critic of Eric Lerner's book. I beg to differ. Can others opine?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
Now, the claim is that Feuerbacher and Scranton, physicists/astronomers, are not reliable sources simply because they published in TalkOrigins Archive. I beg to differ again. Can others opine?
ScienceApologist ( talk) 23:37, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
“ | Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. | ” |
Both of these sources are "self-published" in a sense because they are done on-line. However, both sources are written by established experts in the relevant field previously published by reliable third-party publications. Furthermore, the sources are useful because they address this parochial and marginally notable book directly while referencing the broader context. Can we link to sources that explicate the larger context? Sure, but to remove these sources and to link to those sources is something of a WP:SYNTH violation since the synthesis is made by these sources explicitly. To act otherwise is explicitly Catch-22. ScienceApologist ( talk) 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Could www.happycow.net be regarded as a reliable source for the eating habits of celebrities, specifically if they are vegetarian? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 18:43, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
This looks like a dating service first; could articles in the "local scene" section be regarded as reliable sources? -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 05:45, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
I realize this may be an inappropriate question for this noticeboard, since it's a little more "is this edit acceptable?" than "is this source reliable?". If this is inappropriate, please let me know and accept my apologies.
I've attempted to cite this blog post[ [10]] as an example of media coverage of Oom Yung Doe. My edit was reverted, on the not-wholly-unreasonable grounds that blog postings aren't at all reliable for anything. However, because the topic is specifically what media coverage of Oom Yung Doe is like, and because the post is by a Seattle Spectator staffer on that paper's blog, I can see this one both ways.
Should this be considered a reasonable citation, or no? Subverdor ( talk) 06:44, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
Hi, my question is regarding this source which was very recently added to Roxette discography to support the act's sales-figure of 45 million albums and 25 million singles. The source in question seems very much like a site created by Roxette's fans who post anything about the act that might catch attention regardless of whether the contents are taken from reliable sources. I have to add that just recently I removed numerous sales-figures from Roxette discography which were being supported by another unreliable source. I studied Roxette's Gold/Platinums by taking seven larger music markets including U.S., UK, German, French, Canadian, Dutch, Austria's and Swiss, and the total figure that I came up with does not suggest that they could have sold as many as 75 million records (even if one exaggerates it in order to include the sales within smaller markets) as the provided sources claims. Thanks. -- Harout72 ( talk) 00:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
I need a reality check ... For more than a year, the Freemasonry article has cited the OED for a definition of the term "Anti-Masonry" in our "Opposition to and criticism of Freemasonry" section. The use of this term and definition is now being challenged. Apparently, while previous versions of the OED (I have the 1979, two volume "Compact Edition") contained a definition of this term, the newest version (after 1989) omits it. The more recent version contains the related term, "Anti-Mason", but not the word "Anti-Masonry".
The challenger is now saying that we can not cite the 1979 version, as that is really just a reprint of the 1933 OED (as if that in some way makes the citation outdated or something). (see this dif. He insists that we must use the related term "Anti-Mason" instead (even though that is not what the section is discussing).
I agree that, if possible, we should use the most recent version of reference works... but if that version has dropped a word, is there anything wrong with going back to the most recent version that does contain it? I would think the OED (even one published in 1979) is going to be the most reliable source for the definition of an English word. Am I off base here? Blueboar ( talk) 16:40, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps we could get some input about the reliability of a source for a discusion at [ [12]]. There is an argument that this is a reliable source [ [13]] inpite my having used the linked forum to ask the author about the issue of Obama's denomination here [ [14]]. In her reply, the author of the page admits she needs to update the page. In this one instance, would this be a reliable source for Obama's current denomination? Die4Dixie ( talk) 20:25, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Please don't put words in my mouth. My argument is that we follow Wikipedia's policy of not using a forum as a source of information, and that reliable sources are challenged with other reliable sources. And your argument that you "don't want to use the forum as a reliable source to use in mainspace editing" unnecessarily oversimplifies the issue because you are challenging the reliability of about.com, which might be used to challenge another source that you have "used in mainspace editing".
I can accept it if this noticeboard concludes that about.com in general is not reliable. But let's try to do it honestly without distorting my position or obfuscating the issues. Thank you.
Ward3001 (
talk) 21:04, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
I would certainly not consider about.com to be a reliable source ... it is, however, a good place to start your background research and to locate reliable sources that (after you read them) might be used. Sort of like Wikipedia in fact. Blueboar ( talk) 22:05, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
We've been here several times before with this, but we finally seem to be having a specific case worth looking at: Talk:The_Man_Who_Would_Be_Queen#Academic_freedom_section.
Brief background: the "academic sexologist" clan, including User:James Cantor whose boss is one of the principals in the debates ( Ray Blanchard of the Blanchard, Bailey, and Lawrence theory), wants to be able to cite the "controversial paper" by Alice Dreger to criticize their "enemies", the " transwoman" clan, and their friends (I'm a friend of Lynn Conway). I've tried to balance some of their outrageous stuff with a few words from the other side, citing commentaries in the same special issue of the Archives of Sexual Behavior on this topic. In the past, Cantor, in spite of his outrageous WP:COI, has pushed the idea that the editor Kenneth Zucker said that Dreger article was "peer reviewed" but that he took all comers for the commentaries (not quite true), and that therefore those have to be treated as self-published (an absurd stretch, in my opinion). Furthermore, he argues that if one of those authors is not among the academic sexologists, in the sense of not having published in a peer-reviewed journal on sexology, then they're not expert enough to have their "self-published" writings cited in wikipedia.
Now, Cantor and User:WhatamIdoing seem to be going even further, and objecting to citing Charles Moser (physician), a notable sexologist, as " not an expert on academic freedom," while Dreger " is demonstrably an expert on ethics and on the activism of sexual minority groups." One thing we can't deny: they've got balls!
I think it's about time for someone to push back a bit on this transparent bias based on conflict of interest. But for now, a simple opinion that if Dreger is "reliable" then, for opinions, so are the other articles in that special issue on the topic, would be helpful. Dicklyon ( talk) 02:54, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Concerning the Richard Tylman article and these edits: [15] [16] [17] [18] None of the sources provided in support of the subject’s advertising work includes mention of his name. Given this fact, I ask how it can be that they in any way support the assertion that he contributed artwork to these advertisements. A limited discussion of this matter is found on the article’s talk page [19]. 99.242.160.225 ( talk) 20:47, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The above single purpose dynamic IP number 99.242.160.225 ( talk · contribs) is engaging in a disruptive WP:POINT campaign, clearly shown in the malignant nature of his/her edits, [20] [21] made via two separate IP ranges, the second one being 74.14.227.243 ( talk · contribs). There's nothing wrong with the references listed. But, lying and reverting of a well respected administrator from under the cover of anonimity is. -- Poeticbent talk 21:52, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
The question of whether uncredited commercial art signed legibly or illegibly should be considered as a source is an issue I hope this board will address. I believe that a clearly identifiable signature should count - whether it includes the full name or not. However, there is still the matter of which ads here feature any signature at all. I didn’t notice any, but have said that I may have missed something. On the talk page, Poeticbent identifies one ad as printed with his signature. What about the others? Do they each feature his signature? Questions concerning these ads have not been answered. Piotrus, as the user who introduced this material to the article, you must surely know the answer. Are all of these ads signed?
There seems is a rush to silence queries posed by myself and others. I end my participation here and leave the matter for others to deal with if they so chose. 99.242.160.225 ( talk) 19:33, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Are chambers of commerce reliable sources for a thumbnail description of the economy of a community, or are they not sufficiently independent? Specifically, I am considering using information from the lead paragraph of this web page to draft something more general and informative than the present Encino, Los Angeles, California#Economy section. I am a little concerned that the C of C does not cite its sources or indicate the timeliness of the statistics, but I wonder if it is a good enough basis for a couple general sentences. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 20:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Please see below a reply I posted on the talk:British Isles page with regard to the Scots Language Centre being a reliable source for the use of a Scots language term which (currently) appears on the British Isles article:
I have also included a reference from the Dictionary of the Scots Language, (see also "About the Dictionary of the Scots Language").
The references used on the British Isles article from the DSL and SLC are as follows:
"For "Breetish" see Dictionary of the Scots Language (DSL) & Scottish National Dictionary Supplement (1976) (SNDS). For use in term "Breetish Isles"' see Scots Language Centre website ("Show content as Scots")".
Q: Are these legitimate to use as examples of the Scots adjective "Breetish" and descriptive term "Breetish Isles"??? Endrick Shellycoat 21:35, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the UK news magazine Private Eye a reliable source for information, particularly on living persons, to use on Wikipedia?
Please note that I am talking about the factual sections at the start & end of the magazine (such as Hackwatch & In The City) and not the satire section in the middle.
My opinion - based on my observations over the past year - is that the factual sections of the Private Eye are a reliable source. The magazine's position is also strengthened by the fact that it has successfully fought off libel charges on several occasions. When mistakes are made it publishes clarifications/corrections in the immediately following issue.
I would be grateful to hear the views of more experienced Wikipedia editors who are also familiar with the magazine. Should we use Private Eye as a source when something is published in it, or should we first wait 2 weeks for the next issue, to see whether the article is corrected or clarified? -- Buyoof ( talk) 21:34, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Story here (subscription required) by Wayne Madsen is claiming that the INS Dakar was deliberately sunk by the US Navy in retaliation for the USS Liberty Incident. I have some problems accessing the website as the firewall denies access, classifying it as "hate speech". The story has already been included by an editor in the INS Dakar article. Initial impressions is this would be fringe material and certainly seems conspiracy theory territory. Would appreciate input on the sources reliability by wiki standards. Justin talk 11:31, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
This website: http://www.aspartame.info is a PR website for aspartame, being provided by Ajinomoto, a producer of aspartame. Is an (unsigned) opinion that is published on this website a reliable and verifiable source? The opinion cited in the Aspartame_controversy article has not been published anywhere else, while opinions from experts published in peer-reviewed journals are not accepted in the Aspartame_controversy article. Immortale ( talk) 16:03, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
We have an editor who appears to be struggling with Wikipedia's basic requirements for Verifiability and No original research for some time. The editor, Posturewriter, has a known conflict of interest (he self-published a book outlining his novel medical ideas) and his apparent goal in editing Wikipedia is to share his personal ideas and knowledge with a wider audience. He has created an 'ideal version' in his userspace, and, despite knowing of strong opposition to it, he attempted to replace the existing article with his preferred version today.
The specific source in question is http://www.anapsid.org/, a website created and maintained by Melissa Kaplan. Most of the website is about caring for iguanas and other reptiles. She also posts on her website her current understanding of several diseases affecting her own health ( Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, Fibromyalgia, and Lyme disease), which is the part that is at issue.
Her website is clearly self-published under Wikipedia's rules. Kaplan has no medical or veterinary qualifications, and she has not published anything except her website. She is simply a person interested in the subject because it affects her own daily life. She is therefore not a recognized expert in the relevant field.
The following four statements are sourced to a webpage titled "The disease of a thousand names" on Kaplan's website:
The question for editors at RSN is whether this self-published/non-expert source should be used to verify any assertions about medical ideas on Wikipedia, and specifically for these four statements. It is my opinion that this source does not meet Wikipedia's basic standards, and that the source must be removed (and with it, any statement that can't be sourced to something that does meet Wikipedia's standards). Does this seem like the appropriate application of Wikipedia's policies to the other editors here? (Please: even if it seems as cut-and-dried to you as it does to me, please respond with your view.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 02:17, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
WhatamIdoing; I have already responded to your ridiculous and offensive suggeston that Wikipedia should exclude the opinion of medical consumers when their page is compiled in co-operation with four doctors here [23] and here [24], as it is an extremely serious violation of NPOV principles. That webpage is also supported by the following references which list four or five synonyms in their introductions here [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] and are used as refererences on the subpage here [25] Posturewriter ( talk) 07:39, 26 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter
Reliable Sources Editors; I have considered your comments and would like you to know that if you want the Mellisa Kaplan page of CFS synonyms [26] removed as a source I will do so. However, let me first explain that there are more than 10 reliable sources to support that here [27], and that I was including a medical consumers input for NPOV purposes, and the list was reasonable according to my knowledge of the history of the syndrome. You might also like to consider that WhatamIdoing has previously argued aggressively that it was appropriate to use hatnote policy to add the title of a childrens fiction novel to the top of the page to give prominence to WhatamIdoings preferred label - Soldier’s Heart here [28] - and that when I asked for page numbers that were relevant to Da Costa’s syndrome Gordonofcartoon and WhatamIdoing changed the subject to avoid criticism -see the full conversations and the last three paragraphs in the section here [29].
Please also note that as my contributions were being slab deleted from the Da Costa's syndrome page, someone else (not me) started anonymously adding similar information to the Postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome page as seen in the history of edits from 31-12-07 here [30], and added a long list of medications as treatments. Nobody complained about the anonymity of the contributor, or the obvious sock puppet possibilities, or the obvious COI implications, and there were only five references to 9-4-07 when WhatamIdoing edited it here [31] and none of them were linked to the text. When I mentioned this I was told that WhatamIdoing had too many other pages to edit to spend time on it. However, since then only 2 more references have been added and only two have been linked to the text, which is an example of very sub-standard sourcing and editing. Please note that I have produced a subpage for Da Costa’s syndrome which has 60 numbered WP:MEDRS references with 400 links to the text which provides a far superior sourcing standard here [32]. My conclusion is that WhatamIdoing has a strong opinion here, and is not interested in sourcing policy, so much as using sourcing policy to disrupt my contributions for the purpose of maintaining control of content.
Please also note that at 15;15on 30-5-08 WhatamIdoing asked "Are you satisfied with the current list of labels" here [33] and it only contained five synonyms in the opening paragraph, and at 7:59 the next day 1-6-08, I added the Mellisa Kaplan list of 80, so it is quite likely that WhatamIdoing is arguing out of spite Posturewriter ( talk) 08:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)posturewriter
Is Findagrave an appropriate link for External links? If this is not the appropriate place for this question, could somebody direct me? Thanks in advance, -- Tom 22:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Please take a look at user Carl.bunderson edits in Haq movement article, this user try to insert only official government newspaper [www.gulfnews.com] point of view which cannot be considered reliable since it is used to make propaganda only about the country opposition-- 77.69.195.220 ( talk) 05:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a source at the biography page of Cher, which claims that that Cher's single "Believe" has sold 10 million copies world wide. Personally, after checking her Certification-Awards in U.S., UK, Germany, France, Austria, The Netherlands, Sweden and Australia, I came to the conclusion that the sales of "Believe" could not have surpassed 7 million units world wide. The source was tagged as a dead link for many months; however, was found through a web archive just recently. In my opinion, this cannot be regarded as reliable at all, but I need to be sure before I remove it along with the statement which it supports. I would really be appreciative if someone could comment on this. Thanks.-- Harout72 ( talk) 04:39, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
But what the Certification-Awards suggest (which I am demonstrating above) should not be viewed as someone's opinion, those are facts. I listed music markets which pretty much should cover 80% of the sales on the single "Believe"- U.S.Sales=1 million, UK=1.2 million, Germany=1 million, France=750,000, Australia=210,000, Sweden=90,000, The Netherlands=80,000, Austria=40,000. Then we can simply exaggerate the total number (which is about 4.5 or 4.7 million) slightly in order to include sales coming from smaller markets. All in all, the figure should not exceed 7 million or 7.5 million in the best case scenario.-- Harout72 ( talk) 01:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
If a review of an album which originally appeared in a magazine such as New Musical Express or Q is not available online, is it acceptable to reference it with a Metacritic listing.....? -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 11:03, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Would the following count towards establishing notability for Dave Carlock?
-- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:04, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Also:
-- Rogerb67 ( talk) 14:09, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
There seems to be an edit war going on at Gareth Penn involving the removal of a number of what appear to be credible sources. This entry, for instance:
Portrait of the Artist as a Mass Murderer drew national media attention, and led New York Press reporter Alan Cabal to arrange an interview with Penn that never took place. In a book review of Robert Graysmith's Zodiac Unmasked, Cabal wrote that his efforts to meet Penn were a "a run down the rabbit-hole of Northern California weirdness."
...came from a NY Press book review here, written by journalist Alan Cabal: http://www.nypress.com/article-5757-graysmiths-zodiac-unmasked.html.
A letter to the editor from the same source, the NY Press at http://www.nypress.com, was also deleted.
Why is the NY Press not a credible source? I don't edit enough Wiki articles to know and would appreciate any assistance. Scijournalist ( talk) 21:13, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
(Undent) To address a single issue: The "letter to the editor from the same source, the NY Press" is considered self-published, and unless the author can be demonstrated to be an expert on the subject of the letter, then it cannot be used. If the author is an expert on the specific subject, then the letter can be used in certain limited ways. Please read the relevant section of the policy for more information. If you believe the person to be an expert in the relevant field, and there are still concerns, then please start a new item on this page that describes in detail how you want to use it. (This is usually done by pasting an entire paragraph with the ref onto this page.) WhatamIdoing ( talk) 04:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes it's clear that Cabal says "The fellow I met turned out to be an impostor, a shill", but it's also clear from the context that he means Penn was an imposter - that it became clear during the evening they spent together that Penn's claims to be an expert were all sham. He's not saying that he met some unknown person who was pretending to be Penn! It's explained that the meeting was set up after long correspondence, and he later refers to Penn's own account of "his meeting with me". It's surely a legitimate source for Cabal's opinion of Penn. Paul B ( talk) 19:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I have two episode lists that I am currently looking to bring to WP:FLC. I use the source cal.syoboi.jp as a reference for the airdates of the series as I cannot find an official source that confirms these dates. That being said, a peer review of one of the lists recently brought up the point that cal.syoboi.jp may not be reliable. While I would like to use this source (due to the lack of any other sources), I also would like to only be using Reliable Sources. I have no experience in determining if this is a reliable source or not, so aid would be appreciated. Thanks! NOCTURNENOIR ( t • c ) 05:08, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
What is the reliabilty of WikiFur to verify information about conventions? See Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of furry conventions. Dabomb87 ( talk) 14:20, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Questionable sources regarding:
unsourced commentary by onyxig
"It is important to note that although Republika Srpska is a quite young entity, its history, and the History of Bosnia in general, has begun centuries ago and the geographic region on which the entity currently resides has been deeply affected by numerous wars from medieval ages, Ottoman Empire occupation to WW1, WW2, and finally the Bosnian war." [36]
unviewable source article, undue weight
"The leading Bosnian Serb party, the Alliance of Independent Social Democrats (SNSD), called on other political parties in Republika Srpska to organize a referendum on police reform in Bosnia-Herzegovina. The SNSD said the referendum should give a clear picture on whether the Bosnian Serb police should be dismissed or not in the process reforms under which a single police force is to be created on the state level.[21] "I do expect that the answer of most of citizens of Republika Srpska would be no," Rajko Vasić, member of the SNSD leadership said. He also said the party, which won exactly half the seats in the National Assembly of Republika Srpska on October 1, 2006, would suggest the referendum on police reform as an issue to be discussed at the first next session of the entity's parliament. Earlier last year the leader of the SNSD and the current RS Prime Minister Milorad Dodik said he would be ready to sacrifice negotiations with the European Union on the eventual integration of Bosnia and Herzegovina into the Union, if the RS police is to be abolished as part of the police reform on Bosnia's state-level." [37]
- PRODUCER ( TALK) 19:41, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I'd like to know if tabloid magazines, in this case: People Magazine, are considered 'reliable sources'. There is a quote used from People Magazine for the Biography of a living person that I would like to have deleted from this person's page.
The article written by People Magazine appears to be unresearched, and further more this article is not a 'neutral point of view' - most clearly because it only includes information and the perspective from one side of a dispute between two people.
I wasn't sure if I was supposed to give the actual example in this forum - let me know if that's appropriate. Zoegolightly ( talk) 20:19, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Are The Skinny (magazine) (some information about it here) and The Aquarian Weekly reliable sources? They obviously seem to be, but I would like to be sure whether they really are. Thanks everybody for answering :)-- LYKANTROP ✉ 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
Skinny seems like a ragtag thing that is dumped in pubs for bored people to pick up. It doesn't look RS to me. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:58, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the Freedom of Mind page on Chung Moo Doe[ [44]] a reliable source? Subverdor ( talk) 06:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
While this paper is by an academic who might have otherwise have qualifications, this particular paper (apparently published) is extremely problematic as any kind of reliable source, especially as a cite in Scientology as a state-recognized religion where it was used around 20 times as a 3rd party RS ref:
Someone will probably jump in that Derek Davis is an academic with many many page hits in GoogleBooks. So what? This paper is badly referenced and sourced. Not everything by an academic is automatically RS on Wikipedia. AndroidCat ( talk) 09:38, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Here some publishing background:
Lit Verlag is a German academic publisher, with bases in London, Hamburg, Berlin, Vienna, Zurich and Münster. They cooperate internationally with Transaction Publishers (USA), Palgrave Macmillan (USA) and James Currey (UK). Zeitdiagnosen is not a journal, but a series of books on prominent topics in sociology and political science.
Here is a write-up on the author, Derek H. Davis.
Derek H. Davis, B.A., M.A., J.D., Ph.D., is a graduate of Baylor University and Baylor Law School and holds a Master of Arts in Church-State Studies from Baylor University and a Doctor of Philosophy in Humanities from the University of Texas at Dallas. He is Professor of Political Science and the Director of the J.M. Dawson Institute of Church-State Studies, Baylor University, Waco, Texas, which offers M.A. and Ph.D. degrees in Church-State Studies, conducts research and publishes books on church-state relations and religious liberty in national and international contexts, maintains the largest research library in the world pertaining to religious liberty and church-state relations, and sponsors conferences and lectureships on various church-state themes.
In addition to serving as editor of the award-winning Journal of Church and State, Dr. Davis is a fellow and director of the International Academy for Freedom of Religion and Belief, serves on the advisory council of the Interfaith Religious Liberty Foundation, is on the advisory board of The Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, is a member of the Religious Liberty Council of the National Council of Churches U.S.A., is listed in Who’s Who in American Law and Who’s Who in the World, and presently serves as Special Counsel to the Baptist Joint Committee on Public Affairs. In 2000, he was awarded the Human Rights Achievement Award by Freedom magazine. He is also a former Baylor football captain and all-conference receiver.
He is the author of Original Intent: Chief Justice Rehnquist & the Course of American Church-State Relations (1991 by Prometheus Books), and Religion and the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: Contributions to Original Intent (2000 by Oxford University Press). He is the editor, coeditor, or coauthor of twelve additional books, including The Role of Religion in the Making of Public Policy (1991), Legal Deskbook for Administrators of Independent Colleges and Universities (1993), Problems and Conflicts Between Law and Morality in a Free Society (1993), Genesis and the Millennium: An Essay on Religious Pluralism in the Twenty-first Century by Bill Moyers (2000), Welfare Reform and Faith-Based Organizations (1999), and Religious Liberty in Northern Europe in the Twenty-first Century (2000). He has also published more than eighty articles in various law reviews, academic journals, magazines, and other periodicals.
His frequent magazine, radio, and television interviews have included those for Time Magazine, First Things, The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Philadelphia Inquirer, National Public Radio, Los Angeles Times, Wall Street Journal, Chicago Tribune, The Christian Science Monitor, CNN, the Fox News Network, CBS News, and ABC News. In recent years he has been called upon by the U.S. Congress, the Texas legislature, and United Nations emissaries for testimony relating to legal measures needed to protect religious liberty in national and international settings. He has lectured extensively before academic, public, and religious audiences on a wide range of topics including religious liberty (national and international), church-state relations (ancient, medieval, and modern), human rights, ethnic cleansing, the political role of Christianity and other religions, civil religion, nontraditional religions, religious dimensions of the American founding, law and morality, law and religion, and religion and education.
Gerhard Besier, the editor of the book this appeared in, is a Protestant Christian theologian and historian. He runs the Hannah-Arendt Institute for Research into Totalitarianism at Dresden University. He has been controversial in Germany for taking the view that Scientology should be recognised as a religion in Germany, as it is in the United States and many other countries.
While Davis' paper/book chapter does contain a reference to Wikipedia, which is obviously not citable here, it is the only paper I am aware of whose subject matter correponds exactly to the topic of our article, "Scientology as a state-recognized religion". Jayen 466 00:11, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
Comment - Looks good to me. I doubt that AndroidCat will go through the sensational books and articles commonly cited as sources in Scientology articles and vet the sourcing to this degree. Or to any degree. I wish he would. The argument that we would discount this because it uses primary sources that we have disallowed here is especially specious, this is exactly how a primary source becomes a "secondary source". -- Justallofthem ( talk) 02:03, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
I was wondering if anyone here migh take a look over Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources and add their 2 cents where clarification is needed. Thanks. SharkD ( talk) 01:28, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I have two questions. Sorry if this has been asked already, 1. Are Alternative News Weeklies, such as those published by Village Voice Media, or local weeklies, such as the Bay Area's 'East Bay Express' considered reliable? 2. Also, is anything that is not Op/Ed, such as an arts interview written by a stringer for national publication like the San Francisco Chronicle, considered reliable?
Uwishiwazjohng ( talk) 06:53, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
An article came up at Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests that was using The Chambers Guides as a reference. Chamber's claim that the rankings and editorial comment about lawyers are independent and objective. You don't have to look at many entries to come to the conclusion that they are anything but. Does anyone know if this is actually a paid-for directory listing, it certainly reads like it. SpinningSpark 18:46, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I am curious of other editors opinions about an instance where two editors are reading, seemingly, the identical book but a specific sentence occurs in one editors copy of the book and that sentence is missing from the other editors copy of the book. Ongoing discussion here [49]. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 23:42, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
I wanna expand on Brown Sugar (album), but i'm not sure if dis a reliable, propa reference to use. MusicianGuide: D'Angelo What do u think?
Dan56 ( talk) 07:46, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
On The Chaser APEC pranks in the "The Chaser's response" section, there is an entire section cited by the radio interview on Source 44. The problem is that the website containing the media file is not dead linked. Since then there has been two tags added questioning the reliability of the source.
Now I listened to that radio interview, and while I couldn't possibly remember it, I know that all that information is correct when it was written. I suggested this source on the talk page to another editor (Jasewese) who then wrote that section and sourced it.
Now while archive.org does store the website, the media file dosen't play. So it is probably lost.
Is there a way to get rid of the citation questions around that source. The Windler talk 20:55, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I'm a little worried about this and would like community input. I don't think that these sorts of projects can be considered reliable sources, these sites are not fact checked or peer reviewed, as is normal for sources to be considered reliable on Wikipedia. These sources were originally all included at Haplogroup E1b1b (Y-DNA) Examples include:
I'd like to know what the community thinks about the reliability of these sorts of sources, both for specific sources and more generally. Thanks for any help in advance. Alun ( talk) 10:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
There are, as mentioned above, at least 5 quite different types of source being questioned here. Will anyone actually bother to comment on each one in a clear way rather than just making vague generalizations? The type of information needing sourcing is simple. It is about connecting a DNA test result with a pedigree, or in the worst case scenario, just about saying that someone has made the connection. It is not about developing a new way of testing DNA, or highly complicated statistics.-- Andrew Lancaster ( talk) 19:31, 15 January 2009 (UTC)
This is turning into a repetitive morass that is beginning to verge on personal attacks rather than a discussion of the policy, and how it applies. So far we have one editor, Andrew Lancaster, who claims that the material is not violating original research, and three editors, Wobble, Dahliarose, and Itsmejudith who are questioning this claim. Wobble and Dahliarose it seems to me have laid out there reasoning quite clearly and have begun repeating themselves (which only invits others to start skipping over what they wrote). Likewise, Andrew Lancaster seems to be repeating himself (with the same effect). Given that all three have presented their arguments at length, perhaps we can see what other editors think at this point? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:41, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
As I understand it, there are only two criticisms or questions that have been raised about Andrew Lancaster's edits:
As I understand it, Andrew Lancaster's response to the first question is that these sites are reliable because lots of people use them. If I have inaccurately or incompletely summarized his position, I would ask that he provide an accurate and complete summary.
I read through the material twice and did not find a response to the question about SYNTH. Perhaps Wobble or Dahliarose could provide three specific examples of violations of SYNTH that Andrew Lancaster could respond to concisely? Slrubenstein | Talk 20:48, 16 January 2009 (UTC)
Slr, Dahliarose, Andrew, Peregrine and Itsmejudith, I draw your attention to
my observations regarding the problems with Andrews use of information. Here I lay out why I think the sources are not reliable. I also comment about other concerns I have with the use that these sources have been put to, but that's an independent question. I hope this clarifies things. Cheers.
Alun (
talk) 12:51, 17 January 2009 (UTC)
Andrew, Could you please refrain from quoting back all my comments out of context and twisting my meaning. Could you also refrain from making personal attacks. One of the core policies is Wikipedia:No original research. As I have already stated, my view is that surname projects are undertaking original research. Pedigrees need to be checked, DNA results are put into matching groups, and the results are then analysed. This is not a simple process. The act of linking together pedigrees and DNA results to infer the haplotype of a famous person is a complex process. There is also the question as to whether or not sufficient samples have been taken to prove a specific point. How can this process be anything other than original research? No one is criticising surname projects for the work they do. There are however now literally thousands of DNA surname projects. There are in excess of 5000 surname projects at Family Tree DNA. There are many more at http://dna.ancestry.com. There also others at http://www.dnaheritage.com. We should not be discussing the merits or otherwise of all these surname projects on a case by case basis, which seems to be what you are suggesting. Some DNA project results are of course available on public websites, though the ancestry results can only be accessed via an Ancestry account, and the DNA heritage pages are very sparse. The web pages are compiled either by the project manager or by a team of people from the project who all have a particular interest in the surname. These are therefore self-published results. They are only checked by people within the surname project, and not by an impartial third party. Wikipedia polices have already devised a way of sorting out the wheat from the chaff. The simple test is whether or not these surname projects have been referenced in third-party publications or if results have been published in peer-reviewed journals. In other words it is not up to the Wikipedia editor to decide which projects are notable and reliable based on their own perceptions of what the outside world thinks. It is a decision made by a third party. It makes no difference whether the project admin is Andrew Lancaster, Spencer Wells or Brian Sykes. I have never stated that reliability is the priority. The priority is publication in third-party publications. Dahliarose ( talk) 01:14, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Alun, Dahliarose, and Andrew Lancaster. Above I commented that this discussion had descended into a morass of circular counter-arguments and that you need to let others comment. Since that time a good deal more comment has been added - by the three of you. Only four lines by one other user. This has to stop. You three are abusing this page. This page is meant to solicit the views of outside parties. Instead, you are using it simply to continue conflicts among yourselves that belong on article pages or your own user pages. Here you should summarize the question as concisely as possible, and allow others to comment. If you feel that what you have already written is insufficient to lay out the issue at question, well, that only means you were unready to bring it to this page and this post is premature. Otherwise, all you have done is to hijack this page to air your on views. That is not what this page is for. If you wish to continue arguing with one another, please do so on your respective user pages. Leave this space for other editors to comment on this conflict, and wait patiently until you discover either that (1) no one gives a damn, probably because your petty bickering demands more attention from any outside party than well-intentioned editors owe any query on this page or (2) enough other editors have wieghed in constructively to give guidance at the relevant articles.
There is nothing more for the three of you to say here. If you continue to abuse this page just to continue an argument tht does not belong here, I will put a cap on the discussion. Slrubenstein | Talk 15:52, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
Many ethnic group pages such as the Ossetians page have used Joshua Project to cite their population count in various countries. This site measseures the amount of Christian evangelism that is present among people groups around the world, at the same time they give the population count of the people groups in each country. Is this source reliable enough to back up these population counts? -- Ukabia ( talk) 14:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
The Scientology article has a prominent display box linking to a Wikinews article entitled "Church of Scientology falsely accuses internet group 'Anonymous' of 2007 school shooting" here. The Wikinews article in question is original research and appears to be slanted.
As far as I can tell, reports linking the 4chan community and Anonymous (group) to the shooting appeared, presumably quite independently of the Church, in the mainstream Scandinavian press: article in Dagbladet, with a 4chan screenshot, article in Aftenposten. The Wikinews article however states that –
The accusations appear to be part of a Scientology tactic developed by the organization's founder, L. Ron Hubbard called "fair-game". The Church uses this tactic to harass people, often fabricating lies and defamation against those who protest or criticize their beliefs.
This appears untenable, given that the allegations appeared in the mainstream press.
We have sisterlinks to Wikinews and other projects at the bottom of the Scientology article, which is standard. I feel that should suffice, and that Wikinews articles, and this one in particular, are not sufficiently reliable sources to be prominently displayed in the main body of an article. Views? Jayen 466 16:48, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
is the deactivated gun collector's association website, located at http://www.cybershooters.org/dgca/prod01.htm, to be considered a reliable source to state on Glock pistol that, as for the Glock 18, "Most of the other characteristics are similar to the Glock 17, although the slide, frame, and certain fire-control parts of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with other Glock models." There was an edit war over whether the cybershooters.org(The Deactivated Gun Collector's Association) source is reliable. the cybershooters source is not being used currently in the article, so the current version of the article does not have a source to accurately reflect the detail of the interchangeability claim, but an editor has proposed adding that source. the current source being used http://www.janes.com/extracts/extract/jiw/jiw_0006.html is probably more reliable than cybershooters.org, but it lacks detail about the interchangeability, as the source only states "For security reasons, the main components of the Glock 18 are not interchangeable with those of the Glock 17." so the cybershooters.org source does provide more detailed info, but its reliability is unknown. could be it used to source the current detail? or should the janes source be used with wording restricted to what janes actually says Theserialcomma ( talk) 21:41, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
for what it's worth, the "deactivated gun collector's association" source appears to be a review about a deactivated version of the gun. could that (reasonably) affect the reliability of the review? on the website, it says deactivating a gun "includes modifications to the barrel, bolt, cylinder, slide, firing pin and sometimes the receiver or frame of the firearm." it would seem to me that any modification to the particular gun the reviewer has might differ in some questionable way in comparison to a working one. the website doesn't exactly look like it was designed by professional gun reviewers, either. not to say that professional gun reviewers are HTML wizards, but it's a weak looking website with questionable oversight, no claimed authorship, and about broken guns. Theserialcomma ( talk) 02:09, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
The current first sentence in the Cloud computing article attempts to provide a very brief definition of the article title. However the three references currently given for this definition comprise a website news article, a blog piece and a white paper. All are dated December 2008 or January 2009 and contain phrases that are suspiciously similar to ones that were already used in the same WP article around the same dates. It seems to me that these are almost certainly indirect self-references (i.e. the use of a source which has in turn used the same WP article as a source). However the editor who cited these refs doesn't seem to see a problem with this (a discussion can be found on the talk page under the "Intro" heading). A third opinion would be useful here. Thanks. Letdorf ( talk) 01:14, 2 February 2009 (UTC).
The document "The First Attempts of Flight, Automatic Machines, Submarines and Rocket Technology in Turkish History" by Arslan Terzioglu (2007) is being used as a source in a number of articles including Artillery and the (currently afd) Timeline_of_modern_Muslim_scientists_and_engineers to support the claims that Muslims invented "the first" manned rocket, submarine, and torpedo, among other things. The document has been linked at [86] ; My initial impression is that non-neutral pro-Turkish bias pervades this paper, and wonder if it should be usable as a source.
Dialectric ( talk) 17:33, 23 January 2009 (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.
This has moved beyond the topic of this noticeboard. The sources probably are reliable, but unclear or misunderstood. It is not suitable to add criticism based on original research, but it remains an editorial decision if the sources are useful and presented with due weight. Please take the discussion about the issues back to the proper talk pages. -- Stephan Schulz ( talk) 16:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having some trouble with editors posting claims by embassies about numbers of immigrants (for instance, Italian Embassy in Brazil claims there are 25 million Brazilians of Italian descent, which is, well, crazy; Lebanese Embassy in Brazil claims 7 million Brazilians are of Lebanese descent, which is much crazier; Japanese Embassy in Brasil claims 1.5 million Brazilians of Japanese descent, while the official Brazilian statistics bureau, the IBGE says there are only about 760,000 people of "yellow race" in Brazil).
What is worse, people defend such absurds blindly, and think that because an Embassy is a governmental entity, it cannot possibly be wrong. What can be done about this? Ninguém ( talk) 22:57, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, if there were other sources directly claiming the contrary, it would be easier. But the fact is, besides direct knowledge (I live here, I know the claims are exaggerated), I only have indirect evidence (the claimed figure for descendants doesn't match the actual data of immigrant arrivals; for instance, only some 100,000 Lebanese arrived in Brazil; they would need to be rabbits, not Lebanese, to turn into 6 million people in less than a century), and the other poster thinks that making such conclusion is "original research" and is not allowed, so he systematically reverses any edit contradicting the Embassy claims... I'm trying to discuss in the Talk Page, but it is not too easy. It's the White Brazilian article, by the way.
Thank you for your interest! Ninguém ( talk) 00:37, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, if it is original research to do that, then I think Wikipedia is going to be a failing project. There simply aren't 25 million Italian Brazilians, and much less 6 million Lebanese Brazilian. Such "data" are fantasies; if they cannot be debunked, then Wikipedia is going to be a collection of memes and factoids. :(
No, I don't think the embassies are being biased. They are merely repeating "sexy" unsourced information. They do not conduct demographic research. That is the problem, not a supposed bias.
I tried an edit on the basis of adding that the Embassy data seem incompatible with the IBGE data on immigration, but it was reversed as "vandalism".
Do governments have a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy? It depends on what. The Italian Embassy data on visa are probably accurate, I would have no problem using them. Visas are their business. Their data on oriundi certainly aren't; demography, after all, is not their business. The Central Bank data on the amount of circulating money is quite certainly very accurate. Their data on false money probably isn't. And so on. Generally speaking, I would trust IBGE information; if they don't know data, they state it. If they say 1.5 million Italian immigrants came to Brazil, then probably this is a quite approximate figure. Immigration was legal, even subsidized by government, there is no reason to think about illegal Italians in Brazil.
Thanks anyway. Ninguém ( talk) 03:38, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
The problem is not with different organisations using different inclusion criteria. The problem is organisation that do not conduct demographic research at all being cited as "sources" of demographic "data". Can it be called data if there is no research to reach them?
I have found a nice source to support my argument. Unhappily it is in Portuguese, and I can't find an English version, but it is serious academic research:
[vol14_n1e2_1997_3artigo_51_71.pdf (Objeto application/pdf) A Participação da Imigração na Formação da População Brasileira]
Here is its abstract:
The present study used a simple linear model to estimate the participation of immigration in the formation of Brazilian population. The results showed that between 12 and 24% (most probably 18%) of the Brazilian population has immigrant origin. These numbers indicate that immigration has more importance in the formation of Brazilian population than is usually assumed.
See, this source is not trying to downplay the role of immigration. On the contrary, it is arguing that "immigration has more importance in the formation of Brazilian population than is usually assumed", so it is indirectly stating that the academic consensus "usually assumes" lower figures for descendents of immigrants. Even then, and even considering the maximum (24%) the given by the source, it is clear that the claims of the Italian and Lebanese Embassy are extremely exaggerated, and cannot be both possibly true: 25 million is 15% of the population, and 10 million (which is the number claimed for all people of Arab descent) is 6%. Adding them, this gives 21% - and would mean that the sum of all other immigrant origins - Portuguese, German, Polish, Spanish, Japanese - would be of only 3%. But just the Germans are about 5 million, or 3%. And they are just the fourth more important group of immigrants, behind the Italian, the Portuguese, and the Spanish...
Thanks for your patience. Ninguém ( talk) 18:21, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Well, of course. I think the most relevant parts are, first, page 57-58, where he discusses the rate of return of immigrants to Brazil. He advances four different hypoteses, the first being unrealistic high, and the fourth unrealistic low (ie, that immigrants to Brazil never went back to their countries of origin). Then, on pages 59-60, he applies the criteria he had previously discussed and comes up with tables of estimatives for the POI (Population of Immigrant Origin); those estimatives are quite lower than what the claims of the Embassies imply (for instance, his "unrealistic high" estimate would situate the POI at about 25%, which is some 42 million. If there were 25 million Italians and 10 million Arabs, this would mean that the sum of immigrants of all other origins - Portuguese, German, Spanish, Polish, etc. would be of at most 7 million. While we know that each of those groups are by far more populous than the Arab Brazilians).
I have a more general question about sources and original research. If a source claims that some spacecraft traveled from here to Jupiter in 30 minutes, it is absolutely indispensable to find a source stating that it didn't? Is it original research to simply state that this seems impossible, due to the fact that it implies faster than light travel? Ninguém ( talk) 10:36, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
I don't think that the problem is that I'm not grasping one of the plausible interpretations of "of X descent". Evidently, there is intermarriage, and some people are of "double descent". I myself am of double descent. But this intermarriage has always predominantly been between "Brazilian Brazilians" and immigrants of other origin, and much less often between people of, say, Italian origin and Polish origin. Those exist, but they are a small minority. If for no other reason, because the regions of Italian immigration (São Paulo, Rio Grande do Sul highlands) were different from the regions of German immigration (Rio Grande do Sul valleys of the Jacuí, Sinos and Caí), which in turn are different from the regions of Polish immigration, and so on.
But even then, Judicael Clevelário's figures of 42 million people of immigrant origin are, according to him, an unrealistic maximum. His "reasonable" figure is 18%, which would be, for the year 2000, about 30 million people. It's highly unrealistic to suppose that, of 30 million people of immigrant origin, 25 million of them would be of Italian origin, even considering intermarriage and despising the evidence that intermarriage between immigrants of different origin is not very common.
And one should take into account that Clevelário is revising the figures upwards. More traditional demographers (who Clevelário cites in the beginning of this study), such as Hugon, Levy, Beltrão, Mortara, Cortes, Zagonel, Graham & Merrick, would give even smaller figures.
Evidently, besides, what is meant by "Italian Brazilian" is not people who have a drop of "Italian blood". It is people who, to some level, acknowledge themselves as "of Italian descent". Otherwise the whole issue becomes impossible to discuss, and we should be content with saying that "many" Brazilians have some Italian descent, but it is impossible to calculate how many (Many of the "Portuguese" original settlers do have Maghrebi ancestors; does this make them "Arab Brazilians" or "Berber Brazilians", when they do not in any way consider themselves of Arab or Berber descent? Many "Portuguese" settlers, especially those from Azores, have Dutch blood. Are they "Dutch Brazilians"?)
And finally, in any way, if within a population of 93 million White Brazilians only 42 million are of immigrant descent (and this already implies despising the possibility of non-Whites of immigrant descent), we then have still 51 million White Brazilians of Portuguese colonial descent. Seems to me that - even disconsidering that many of those who are of immigrant descent are also of Portuguese colonial descent- people of Portuguese descent are the majority; am I wrong?
I'm not against citing the Lebanese Embassy saying that there are 6 million Lebanese Brazilians and 10 million Arab Brazilians. I'm for saying that the Lebanese Embassy says this, but that the Lebanese Embassy does not conduct demographic research, that the Brazilian Census does not research ethnicity, that only about 100,000 Lebanese and Syrians immigrated to Brazil, and that if there are today 6 million Brazilians of Lebanese descent, this implies a quite extraordinary growth rate among Lebanese Brazilians (and this probably needs sources, and good sources, since it is a quite extraordinary claim).
Thank you for your interest and patience. Ninguém ( talk) 13:59, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
You claim IBGE is the only reliable source about demography of Brazil. Then, IBGE itself claims that the White Brazilian population only started to grow as a result of the massive entries of immigrants in the late 19th century [88]
"Os dados disponíveis mostram que em 1872, data do primeiro recenseamento nacional, a população de cor preta e parda alcançava 58% do total (..)O segundo censo nacional, realizado em 1890, já no período republicano, mostra, como resultado da maciça imigração de origem européia incentivada e subsidiada pelo Estado, que o percentual de população preta e parda tinha diminuído para 47%. Meio século mais tarde, os dados do Censo Demográfi co 1940 indicam a continuidade desta queda para menos de 36% de pretos e pardos, quando o percentual de brancos alcança 63,5%. A crise fi nanceira de 1929 e a eclosão da Segunda Grande Guerra 10 anos depois, entretanto, adiaram sine die a continuidade do processo imigratório."
The IBGE reports, in Portuguese, that the majority of Brazil's population was composed of people of African descent (both black abd brown) and the White population only became the majority as a result of the late 19th century European immigration.
Brazil received only 500,000 European (Portuguese) settlers during the Colonial era, mostly men. Many of them mixed with Africans and Amerindians, and their descendants are mainly non-white. On the other hand, Brazil received over 5 million Europeans after independence. [89]
Then, to claim that most white Brazilians are descendants of this small group of 500,000 Portuguese men who settled Brazil (and largely mixed if African and Amerindian females), and that descendants of the over 5 million Europeans who arrived from 1820 to 1970 are a minority, is a complete nonsense.
I know you are since the beggining trying to prove that the vast majority of White Brazilians have colonial Portuguese roots, since you already reported your grandparents are "Colonial Portuguese" [90] and then you even claimed that people from Calabria in Italy may not be considere Italian (where did you take this theory from? If people from Calabria are not italians, what are they? Japanese or Chinese?)
Moreover, you are also claiming the Portuguese have large amounts of Arab North-African admixture. Where did you take this new theory from? Did you read article Portuguese people? There are many genetic resources that found that the Portuguese have a quite insignificant Arab/Berber admixture, since their ancestry is mainly traces to 40,000 years ago humans beings that settled Iberia.
You use so many theories, impossible theories. I ask you to read carefully all the rules of Wikipedia, because theories are not allowed here, I'm sorry. Opinoso ( talk) 14:55, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Opinoso, if you want to discuss Brazilian demography, then you should do it at the White Brazilians Talk Page. If you want to discuss here, then you should discuss whether Embassies are reliable sources of demographic information. You are doing exactly the opposite: discussing the content of the article here, and making claims about the reliability of Embassies in the Talk Page.
In the Talk Page, you stated the following:
However, I'm pretty sure the Italian Embassy does have access to all these informations, so they are able to calculate how many Brazilians have ancestors who immigrated from Italy. Then, Ninguém, you are not allowed to calculate yourself the figures, but the Italian Embassy is.
If you are so sure of that, then you certainly do have some evidence that Embassies do that. For everything I know, they don't. They do not research data, they do not have demographers among their staff, and they depend on other sources to make statements like that.
Now, if you are right, and I am desperate, they there should be no reason to fear my messages to others. The fact that this disturbs you only shows that you are not as sure as you think you are. And frankly, it makes my point: you do not want other people who understand Portuguese to read or - God forbid - edit the articles you "own". That way, you think, you will be able to spread disinformation at will, like "no one in Rio Grande do Sul 'speaks' gracias" or "people in Rio Grande do Sul speak Portuguese with a Spanish accent". This is the reason you personal talk page is full of insult exchanges with other Brazilians - its your way to make it unbearable to them to try and contribute to "your" articles. And this, in turn, is the reason you have just tried to hide your personal talk page. Ninguém ( talk) 16:22, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and History of Portugal#Moorish rule and the Reconquista. Good grief. Ninguém ( talk) 16:33, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
On more thing. Opinoso's User Page in the Portuguese Wikipedia was recently vandalised. Can an admin protect his page here, before it gets vandalised too, and he takes the opportunity to accuse me of doing it? Ninguém ( talk) 16:40, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Caughey
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Cohen
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).CohenLIfeSituations
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).White
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wood2
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Hurst
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).yesteryear
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |date=
(
help)
MacLean1944
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Wooley3
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).titleOMIM - ORTHOSTATIC INTOLERANCE
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).lu
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Harrisons
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).