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 265 | ← | Archive 270 | Archive 271 | Archive 272 | Archive 273 | Archive 274 | Archive 275 |
This website is sort of a repository for PDFs of academic journal articles ( example). A bunch of Wikipedia articles, when citing an academic source, link to PDFs stored there. While certainly convenient to our readers, I wondered how this squares with WP:COPYVIOEL since pretty much all of these journal articles are behind a paywall on the publisher's website ( original source for the example above). I replaced links to PDFs on the website on one page, but before continuing I wanted to double-check whether this is necessary. -- bender235 ( talk) 19:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sourcesfor their data. As Semantic Scholar is a high-profile site that has not been involved in any legal controversies (as far as I can see), I don't think there is any cause for concern about whether its content is properly licensed. Google Scholar also indexes documents hosted by Semantic Scholar, with no DMCA claims in sight. I wouldn't bother changing Semantic Scholar links to other hosts. — Newslinger talk 06:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Semantic Scholar's FAQs state:
Do you provide articles that are behind paywalls?
We have some articles that are only available behind paywalls, but the data we have for those articles is limited. We plan to expand our coverage and quality of paywalled content in the future. If you are a publisher that would like to see your content in Semantic Scholar, please contact us.
Only a legal professional with visibility into Semantic Scholar's operations can determine with reasonable certainty whether the site's hosted documents comply with copyright laws. Semantic Scholar claims that they have the appropriate licenses for their hosted content, and I don't doubt them. Both Semantic Scholar and its parent organization ( Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence) have collaborated with a number of universities and academic publishers (see Open Academic Search). — Newslinger talk 07:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I know that PhD dissertations may be acceptable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I'm always hesitant to use them. I think my plan here is solid, but I'd really like a second opinion of what I'd like to do.
I'd like to incorporate information from chapters 3-5 of this dissertation by Christopher Clement into the History of Tobago article. The dissertation comes from the University of Florida, which has a well-respected programme in Caribbean archaeology.
Pages 6-7 of the dissertation outline the overall layout. Chapters 3-5 are historical, and synthesise a mixture of primary sources. The later chapters of the dissertation (6-8) cover Clements field work in Tobago, and have been published elsewhere, in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not proposing to use those chapters of the dissertation as a source. But I do think that 3-5 are a useful overview of the history of Tobago that I can't really find elsewhere.
Does this reasonable? Guettarda ( talk) 14:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
streetlist.co.uk seems like a typical WP:UGC with no sign of editorial oversight. From their about page, it seems that it is maintained by an unknown individual. So, is it considered a reliable source? BTW, it is cited around 13 times on this project. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This draft: /info/en/?search=Draft:Alcides_S._%22Bull%22_Benini Has three citations. None of which are a publication, but all apparently reliable. An effort is being made to find published sources
There might be a question of his notability because of the questionability of the sources, however Bull Benini survived the Bataan Death March, Japanese Hell ships, went on to "found" Combat Control, which is today folded into Special Tactics Squadrons, of which the 24th STS has produced a Medal of Honor (TSgt John A. Chapman a Combat Controller), and played and are playing vital roles in the Global War on Terrorism,especially in Afghanistan. http://www.cctmemorial.com/Brothers/B/Benini_A/Benini_A.html, https://goefoundation.org/eagles/benini-alcide-s/, http://www.ccshf.org/ccshf-admin/cmsgt-alcide-bull-benini/ ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nairaland ( nairaland.com) is a Nigerian Internet forum that is currently being cited in 180 articles , frequently in biographies of living persons. As a self-published source that publishes user-generated content, Nairaland should be not be used on Wikipedia in nearly all cases.
Ammarpad requested blacklisting of the Nairaland domain at WP:SBL § Nigerian gossip forum, but was asked to continue the discussion here. Should Nairaland be added to the spam blacklist? — Newslinger talk 08:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing articles by David Crane on defensereview.com tagged as self-published. Since he owns the site, that seems reaosnable, but is it a RS? Example article: Atchisson Assault Shotgun. Guy ( Help!) 19:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This website is run by conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky. It's been discussed here since at least 2007, with consensus that it's unreliable. I'm about to add it to my nuke-on-sight list. There are about 160 references to this webshite right now. Guy ( Help!) 21:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at articles tagged with self-published sources. Articles on military hardware and guns are a goldmine of unreliable self-published websites.
Among others, I found links to liveleak.com (we should have that on the "fuck no" list), globalsecurity.org (comedy gold) and reloadbench.com, which is full of malware so I just blacklisted it. Anyone looking for an amusing half hour, trawl the transclusions of template:self-published inline. [1] for example. This is going to be a long job. Guy ( Help!) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
streetcheck.co.uk is operated by a software company, but it doesn't seem to have any editorial oversight. So, is it considered a reliable source? BTW, it is cited around 30 times on this project. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Agar Street ... is one of very few streets that still have a Cobbled road? - NitinMlk ( talk) 19:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem: Kennel Club Books, a publishing company that was a somewhat proficient publisher from 2003 to 2005 (per the graph at the link) but was out of business by 2012. I have been unable to confirm or deny if they were a self-publishing source for aspiring authors categorized under Publishing Consultants 20:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC) . The authors they solicited and/or approved for publication may or may not have been dog experts/professionals. The book I'm questioning is The Bully Breeds which is about 6 different dog breeds: American Pit Bull, American Staffordshire Terrier, Boston Terrier, Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, all of which are recognized by the AKC. The book is authored by David Harris. Goodreads states: The Bully Breeds is an insider's account of life with a bully, highlighting the characteristics, abilities and accomplishments of these breeds. About the author: David A. Harris is a professional acoustical engineer specializing in architectural and environmental acoustics, product development, and building material research. In the book, Harris included 2 paragraphs (passing mention) about an obscure, unverifiable breed of dog called the Catahoula bulldog. He describes the dog as a crossbreed of the American Bulldog and Catahoula Leopard Dog but all of the published information is anecdotal. He also mentions the Animal Research Foundation (ARF) (long defunct) which appears to have existed as a private for-profit registry founded/owned by an individual. The dogs that were registered by ARF were crossbred dogs that the long-established reputable breed registries would not recognize because they failed the qualifications necessary to be added as purebreds. According to anecdotal reports, ARF was supposed to have been keeping records of the dogs they "registered", but again - it is information based on anecdotal reports. See this Rip-off report, and this wordpress article - there is very little information available about ARF as the key people who supposedly kept records died many years ago.
|
@ Atsme: Your questions have been asked and answered. In review:
Perhaps take further questions to the article's Talk page, or start a new question/discussion on RSN to cover further questions not already asked and answered. — Normal Op ( talk) 02:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Les reines de France au temps des Valois, Volume 1, Simone Bertière.
Can this be considered a reliable source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I have been asked to add references to a list of comic book titles before it can be published, and I would like to know if I can use an online comic book store, such as mycomicshop.com, as a reliable secondary source. I would strictly be using this source to confirm that the title exists, and for no other information. Going by the WP:AFFILIATE policy, it sounds like this should be allowed, but I would just like to confirm with someone before I get started on the work of adding the references. Thank you. Wilkinswontkins ( talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the The Grayzone ( https://thegrayzone.com) reliable? Max Blumenthal, Anya Parampil and Benjamin Norton and other editors have participated in the highly politicized Foro de São Paulo in Caracas 2019. Benjamin Norton has even expressed “and long live socialism,” in response to Nicolás Maduro "Long live peace". WaPo describes it as a "far-left media outlet". [33] It does not seem very reliable for Venezuelan news, is The Grayzone even reliable on any subject?-- MaoGo ( talk) 09:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
an avowedly anti-communist organizationand insinuate that the ISO's logo of a raised fist, a symbol historically associated with anticapitalist movements (as well as others), was somehow connected to Otpor, a Serbian protest organization which the Grayzone describes as being
US government funded. Moreover, the claim that Otpor was funded by the US government is supported with a link to another Grayzone article which does not include that claim, but instead states that the members of Otpor went on to form Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (true) which is funded through the National Endowment for Democracy (citation needed). Our article on CANVAS claims that CANVAS does not receive funding from governments and that most of the funding comes from the organization's founder, citing Mother Jones and Foreign Policy. signed, Rosguill talk 02:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Recently an editor inserted information on Donald Barr which uses Milne News as a source.
However, other sources dispute the claim that Barr hired Epstein as Barr had resigned his position at the school some eight months before Epstein began teaching there. According to the school newspaper, Epstein came aboard in September of 1974 for the new school year.
There are many online news sources with which I lack familiarity, but on a cursory look at their published content, it appears to me Milne might not meet the standard for RS. Does anyone have any history with this source? Is my impression incorrect? BusterD ( talk) 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"team of Journalists, analysts and contributors", but it does not name any of them. None of the articles on the site list their authors. Milne News also has a tendency to promote conspiracy theories, including George Soros conspiracy theories in "Radical Leftwing Groups Linked to Soros Are Being Transported In To Protest This Week’s Kavanaugh Hearings", as well as "The collusion between the FBI and Mainstream Media that everyone stopped talking about", which claims that
"The bottom line is the mainstream media colluded with agents and executives at every level of the FBI to try to affect the results of the 2016 presidential election."— Newslinger talk 04:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The existence of such a letter is not under dispute. It is mentioned with due detail in the California Archives website:
Resolution of the TsK KPSS Secretariat approving a response to a letter from M. Rajavi, leader of the Mujahedin [Holy Warriors] Organization of the Iranian People, to M. Gorbachev, and to a request submitted by the organization; two copies of instructions to the Soviet Embassy in Bulgaria to be delivered in ciphered form by the Committee for State Security (KGB); extract from the minutes of the TsK KPSS Secretariat; memorandum to the TsK KPSS from R. Ulianovskii, Deputy Chief of the International Department; letter to Gorbachev from Rajavi (translated into Russian) and the original letter in Persian; statement with information about the collection of documents attached to the letter from Rajavi; memorandum (translated into Russian) to the TsK KPSS from F. Olfat, member of the Politburo of the Mujahedin Organization, and the original letter in Persian requesting that the TsK KPSS lend any amount of money (up to US$300,000,000) to the Mujahedin Organization; memorandum to the TsK KPSS from Olfat, (translated into Russian) and the original letter in Persian requesting that the supporters of the Mujahedin Organization be allowed to cross the Soviet-Iranian border and be granted a temporary asylum in the Soviet Union, 1985 December - 1986 February
For those who are familiar with Farsi the content of the letter shown in the image exactly matches with what is noted in the California archives website. It thus boils down to whether we can rely on sources such as Radio Koocheh or Hamneshin-e-Bahar who posted the image of the letter online. To begin with both the above mentioned sources are not accessible inside Iran. The existing Iranian government censors these websites (along with many others) because of these websites' criticisms toward itself. So there is no way one can claim the two mentioned sources have a dog in this fight. Secondly, Radiokoocheh is a US based Radio/News website founded by a journalist, named Ardavan Rouzbeh, whose work is cited by BBC here. No need to mention that Rouzbeh, himself was banned by the Iranian government from journalism activities and had to leave the country. Am I right thinking, given that the content of the letter is a verified fact, it is safe to rely on Radio Koochech for the image of the letter?-- 178.252.149.137 ( talk) 07:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Is The Intercept a reliable source? I used this reference article—which was co-published with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting—in the 2019 Brazil wildfires article in this paragraph. The editor who removed it said on the talk page that The Intercept was not a reliable source for scientific statements.
The Amazon River basin, which is about the size of Australia, is covered in a dense vegetation including 400 billion trees. The dense moisture-filled forest "exhales a fifth of the oxygen" on the planet; it stores carbon that is centuries old, and "deflects and consumes an unknown but significant amount of solar heat." [1] The Amazon rainforest "fuels planet-scale systems" including atmospheric rivers as 20 percent of the world's fresh water passes through cycles in this rainforest. [1] Since the 1970s, Brazil has cut and burned about 20 percent of the forest representing 300,000 square miles (776,996 km2)—which is larger than Texas. [1]
In recent years, "land-grabbers" (grileiros) have been illegally cutting deep into the forest in "Brazil's Indigenous territories and other protected forests throughout the Amazon". Since the October election, they have been cutting in the land of the previously isolated Apurinã in Amazonas, where the the "world's largest standing tracts of unbroken rainforest" are found. [1]
References
Thanks. Oceanflynn ( talk) 00:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
"strive to hold the powerful accountable with truthful and aggressive reporting". The policies
"recognize that writers have a point of view", but also list procedures for soliciting responses from subjects, attributing sources, correcting errors, and publishing updates. Biased, but generally reliable for news topics. — Newslinger talk 00:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"exhales a fifth of the oxygen"quote. I see that the
"exhales a fifth of the oxygen"claim was the subject of a fact check by other news sources in the last few days. Since even news agencies Associated Press ( RSP entry) and Reuters ( RSP entry) (both of whose articles are republished by many publications) made the same claim, I'm concluding that the mistake is part of the systemic issue of news sources being less rigorous than academic sources for this type of scientific claim. The Intercept is still generally reliable for news topics, within the limitations of a news source. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Gaël Duval's piece in Hacker Noon, "Leaving Apple & Google: How is /e/ actually Google-free?" is being used to cite the following statement in the /e/ (operating system) article:
In March 2019, Duval wrote, "I’m very pleased that some security and privacy experts are starting to have a close look at /e/, and are challenging what we are doing," and thanked InfoSec Handbook experts for their review, which concluded, “While /e/ looks promising, it isn’t Google-free by now.”
[1]
References
Since Duval is the developer of /e/, this can be considered a primary source. However, there is also the question of how much weight to assign to the Hacker Noon piece, since it has not been mentioned in other reliable sources. The piece refers to the InfoSec Handbook piece "/e/ – privacy-enabled Android ROM, or Evil Corp?", which is not directly cited in the /e/ (operating system) article.
Hacker Noon ( hackernoon.com) was formerly a Medium ( RSP entry) publication on its own domain name, before it transitioned to its own platform (on the same domain) earlier this year. Hacker Noon does not have staff writers: all of its articles are contributed. Their about page states that their contributors are unpaid.
InfoSec Handbook (
infosec-handbook.eu) is "a growing community of European information security professionals and privacy activists who like to share their knowledge for free"
. They have an
about us page.
Are Hacker Noon and InfoSec Handbook reliable sources for the /e/ (operating system) article? — Newslinger talk 03:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Re: "Leaving Apple & Google: How is /e/ actually Google-free?"
In addition to being publicised and discussed in /e/'s own blog and forums, the same article has been published a few places. Two more are:
https://medium.com/hackernoon/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free-1ba24e29efb9
https://www.indidea.org/gael/blog/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free/
The article received some attention at reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/clj3qp/leaving_apple_google_how_is_e_actually_googlefree/
In addition, at indidea, and at medium.com, Duval published the following supplement comment, referring to /e/'s tracking of the issues in their GitLab:
"Gaël Duval April 29, 2019
All those points have been converted to issues in our GitLab: https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review "
This shows a large amount of importance given to the issues raised, and to the expertise of the people publishing the criticisms (InfoSec Handbook).
I support giving significant weight to the criticisms addressed in the articles (and tracked in the Gitlab).
Re: InfoSec Handbook as a reliable source.
Search engine test: Startpage Search for criticism of /e/ foundation or eelo sometimes show "/e/ – privacy-enabled Android ROM, or Evil Corp?" by InfoSec Handbook as Number 1 result. Search for /e/ foundation or eelo shows InfoSec Handbook articles among the top.
It is recognized as expert by Duval and /e/ foundation staff who are tracking and working on the issues raised (only half are closed so far).
In their about page, the wide range of activities described illustrate expertise in the subjects. The stated credentials, backgrounds and experiences are impressive.
The site is non-profit and self-funded (i.e. independent).
Privacytools.io has an open, deliberative process for determining whether to endorse software as privacy-respecting tools. In deciding NOT to endorce /e/ (yet), weight was given to issues raised at InfoSec Handbook:
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/864
I support InfoSec Handbook as a reliable source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"high-quality reliable sources", and all of the above falls short. If Duval responds to a non-notable group blog in his own blog post, and neither blog is covered by a secondary reliable source, then it is likely that both blog posts should be excluded as undue weight. Also, we don't consider results from search engines (including Startpage) as a factor in determining whether a source is reliable. WP:V states,
"Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and with the lack of reliable independent secondary source coverage of these publications, I'm not seeing much of a reputation here for either Hacker Noon or InfoSec Handbook. — Newslinger talk 22:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The search engine test is an inappropriate replacement for our verifiability policy, which I've quoted above. When the /e/ (operating system) article has coverage in reliable sources such as Linux Journal, ZDNet ( RSP entry), TechRepublic, Le Monde informatique, and The Register ( RSP entry) already cited in the article, it shouldn't be difficult to add content based on those secondary sources and minimize content based on primary sources.
Has the InfoSec Handbook blog ever been covered by a reliable source? Without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it should be considered a self-published source, which is generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
"Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons."
Duval describes infosec-handbook.eu as experts. No one has raised any controversy regarding the accuracy of their work and conclusions regarding /e/. What they say is not controversial or exceptional claims. Half of the 12 issues being tracked in e's gitlab are still open. This is a good start on a record of fact checking and accuracy, at least on this topic.
So few secondary sources cover /e/ as it is, that the request for deletion included accusations of using meat puppets. Also, the article was created by someone with close ties to /e/, Manoj: community leader. Yes, some articles have appeared, but most of them are based on interviews of Duval or regurgitating pieces of his blog articles.
It would be great if other secondary sources had covered one of the very few other secondary sources that cover /e/, but that's asking too much in this case. In this case, on this topic, the two articles Infosec-handbook.eu has published appear to be reliable and accurate. We should be able to give this some weight in the article, as it was given a lot of weight by the subject founder and staff, even if we call this a "generally unreliable" source.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion//e/_mobile_operating_system
https://e.foundation/about-e/#people -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
HackerNoon is a group blog, and a substantially crypto/blockchain blog at that. Perhaps it has interesting OR that looks useful for some articles, but it's a primary source at best - David Gerard ( talk) 14:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While Nickiswift.com (and its parent, Zergnet) have never been the subject of discussion here at RSN, there appears to have been a largely unspoken view that they are not a reliable source of information. As per a discussion at BLPN (
here), a consensus emerged that thinks that the site is not reliable.
It seems advisable to make a note of that here, as a lot of editors check here to make sure that sources haven't been questioned before. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 18:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of entertainment brands tackle Hollywood, but Nicki Swift stands apart in style and smarts. Spending time with us is like hanging out with friends who keep the conversation clever, quick, and classy. We dish out the good stuff on all your favorite celebs, add expert analysis, then move on to the next hot topic, all without breaking a sweat.This does not sound like a website who provides reliable
Selfdescribes as " Celebrity obsessed." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a new RfC at Talk:Paul_Stamets#RfC_about_description_of_Paul_Stamets_in_the_lede, where input would be helpful. Part of the issue is whether the sources provided are sufficient or insufficient to establish use of the term 'mycologist' for describing Stamets. Dialectric ( talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/15/tehran-admits-strength-of-irans-democratic-resistance/
Can this be a reliable source for this statement - "This widespread endorsement of regime change prompted Khamenei to acknowledge the organizational role of the MEK and the “resistance units” operating throughout Iranian society."
This is in People's Mujahedin of Iran.
Barca ( talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
A recent IP edit of United States anti-abortion movement (see [35]) cites a source from the journal "SAGE Open Medicine" (see [36]) supporting a claim about the supposed unreliability of research on abortion and the alleged mental health risks from abortion that seems to conflict with the scientific consensus. Is the cited source MEDRS, or should the edits be reverted? Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 00:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll start by noting that author David Reardon is an anti-abortion activist, and his expertise is in Electrical Engineering, not medicine. Despite this, he is very well published in this field, but then he also went and got a fake PhD in biomedical ethics from a diploma mill. So that may cause this to be rejected as RS, (certainly as MEDRS), but I think the review is remarkably fair. I mean, this is a very long review with over 200 references and many finer points, but overall he's drawing a few very uncontroversial conclusions: A) There is a significant correlation between abortion (both having had one and seeking one) and mental health issues; B) Not all women who have post-abortion mental health issues had previously been diagnosed with mental health issues; C) To some extent these issues can be predicted; and D) There is no ethical experiment that could test whether carrying a baby to term is better for a mother's mental health than abortion, either generally or in specific risk groups. In sort of 'principle of embarrassment'-type-admission that might imply reliability, this review also cites "exposure to anti-abortion picketers" as the most common risk factor predicting post-abortion mental health issues("most common" here != strongest correlation, btw). The most controversial statement I can find is the suggestion that there is a publication bias in favor of theories and findings supporting pro-life viewpoints on the part of both editors and reviewers as well as authors themselves. Specifically he points to the fact that some abortion-related data is gathered and theoretically available but never published, which I have noticed myself in the past and attributed to some people just not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like to site as source the articles of incorporation of a Delaware company. These records are by law filed with the registrar of corporations, and in principle subject to mandatory provision to anyone who request by the freedom of information act. However, they are not available for on-line search. How can I satisfy Wikipedia’s verifiable source rule? Thank you for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinhanoi ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend using the {{
Cite web}} template with the Entity Search website as the url
(https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx
) and the company's
File Number as the id
. For example, here's how I would cite
Google LLC:
{{Cite web | url = https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx | title = Division of Corporations - Filing | website = General Information Name Search | publisher = [[Secretary of State of Delaware]] | id = [https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/FieldDesc.aspx#FILE%20NUMBER File Number] 3582691 }}
The result is:
"Division of Corporations - Filing". General Information Name Search. Secretary of State of Delaware. File Number 3582691.
These entries (and all equivalents to articles of incorporation) are primary sources. They can be used for uncontroversial details, but not for original research. They do not count toward a company's notability, since every Delaware company has one. — Newslinger talk 09:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
SANDRP (South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People) runs a "blog site" where various environmental concerns are reported. They process humongous amounts of data available from various public and private sources to produce useful analyses. Here is a
sample article on the power generation performance of various hydroelectric projects on the Chenab river (a key river shared between India and Pakistan through the
Indus Waters Treaty). And
here is a somewhat more controversial article that says "This means the project envisages sediment flushing by drawdown ... This is clearly not allowed under PCA [Permanent Court of Arbitration] order cited above on Indus Treaty.
"
Are we allowed to use facts and information available from the site cautiously, attributing it where necessary? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Are any of http://gimn1567.ru/ , http://elib.biblioatom.ru/ , http://www.famhist.ru/ , and http://www.peoples.ru/ reliable sources, particularly for biographical information? They're Russian sites, and I can't evaluate them. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
the collection, systematization and provision of free network access of various documents and publications, sometimes unique and inaccessible, reflecting the creation and development of the nuclear industry, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy [in the USSR and Russian Federation].The historical nature of some of the texts hosted on the site should be taken into account when evaluating their reliability for a given claim.
My two cents:
Hope that helped. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Iamsnag12 ( talk · contribs), an eight-year-old account with less than 100 edits, has repeatedly added the same non-reliable source to multiple articles. The first four times on 14 August: [38] [39] [40] [41]
Upon removal as a non-RS, user promptly readded without discussion on 15 August: [42] [43] [44] [45].
User was reported to ANI and alerted to discretionary sanctions [46], and on 20 August, the material was removed from the four pages by admin User:JzG as a non-RS. [47] [48] [49] [50]
On 31 August, the user re-added the same source for a ninth and tenth time. Also posted to ANI. Feoffer ( talk) 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
IMDb is mentioned under WP:UGC. So it is not a RS? IMDb is used on many WP articles - articles on movies, TV series, etc. I have also used IMDb as a source on an article I have created. Should I remove it? Puduḫepa 20:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Anybody have the link handy to our collection of free public historical newspaper archives? I swear I've used this a dozen times before, but I don't remember where it's at. GMG talk 10:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been directed here by a user from Teahouse as I approached the platform for help regarding understanding Wikipedia's policy for using any video as a reference in an article. The context and required information is as following: B. M. Kutty is an article created by me few days back. In the article besides other news sources I have used a video hosted by YouTube as reference. When I nominated the article for DYK the reviewer asked me to not use the video as a reference because according to the user YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable. I understand that anyone can publish his/her work on YouTube including original research and why some people might not find YouTube as a reliable source but this is NOT about YouTube. The concerned video is uploaded by the official channel of The Print which in my opinion is a reliable news source and the video is authored by Shekhar Gupta, a renowned journalist and recipient of Indian's third highest civilian award. I am very new to Wikipedia and might not understand its policies like other experienced editors but I found nowhere where it says a video hosted by YouTube can't be used as a reference. Whether that video is a reliable or not can be a moot point but blanket ban on videos must not be a policy, IMHO. Regards. -- Deepak G Goswami ( talk) 10:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Is Social Justice (journal), a peer reviewed academic journal focused on social justice issues a reliable source on the status of democracy in Venezuela, and possible democratic backsliding there? There's a debate regarding this here- Talk:Democratic_backsliding#Low-quality_sources_used_to_rebut_DB_in_Venezuelahere, with some editors claiming that because it a "Marxist journal", it is fringe. Here come the Suns ( talk) 16:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm still finding references to this site tagged as {{ sps}}. There was a reading of "rough consensus" of "meh" before, but I am still seeing statements on the site, linked to the articles we're citing, like "NASCAR, home to a huge percentage of Hillary Clinton’s basket of deplorables, wants to ban ads featuring America’s favorite rifle? That would be like banning ads for motor oil or beer", which is clear polemic. Reliability? this, featured on the main page today, seems like a random "readers' guns" submission. And then there's " Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre: The Mainstream Media Cover-Up Continues from 2017. "aiding and abetting the enemies of the Second Amendment is one thing. Downplaying and/or ignoring vital information about the Sandy Hook spree killing is another." I also find Gun Confiscation for Dummies: ‘Red Flag’ Laws Are Gorified SWAT-ing" disturbing: in what way is removing guns from [https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/an-ex-marine-said-hed-slaughter-antifa-the-fbi-using-oregons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html peple threatening to go on a shooting spree similar to [[2017 Wichita swatting |actually getting people gunned down]]? " Even The Obama Administration Knew That Banning Bump Fire Stocks Was Illegal", " The greatest gun salesman in the history of the world has let it be known that he’s a fan of the Parkland students and their efforts to reduce and restrict Americans’ Second Amendment rights".
So, not Alex Jones but certainly Daily Caller levels of paranoid. And the comments. Oh, dear, the comments :-( Unashamedly a gun advocacy, anti-gun-control site "I recently threatenedpromised to publish pro-gun control content on this site. Readers ready to man The Walls of the City oppose the idea. Why give the enemy aid and comfort? Suffice it to say, TTAG is no more a false flag operation than Bar Refaeli is . . . well . . . you know. I simply believe in the Bob Hoskins philosophy. The more we know about gun control advocates’ thinking [sic] the more we’re able to lure fence sitters: Americans who don’t have the info or critical thinking skills to deconstruct disarmament deception—no matter how illogical.
[52] - so firmly nailed to the
minority view in America that all gun control is bad. Which is fine, if that's your bag, but Wikipedia isn't for advocacy.
I don't have much to do with gun politics articles (I'm English, the entire thing looks bonkers to anyone who isn't American), but this site looks to me to be in the same category as Occupy, Daily Caller and others who publish some valid material but with such a clear agenda that we should be avoiding use here. An "uncontroversial" fact doesn't isolate a source that self-identifies as "The People of the Gun" from being controversial. Especially when they are arguing that
"false flag" / ANTIFA conspiracy theories should be given more prominence by YouTube. I really don't think we need this site to tell us things like the cartridge weight of a specific gun. In fact, from the outside, it looks as if some
WP:COATRACKing has been going on over the years. I don't think we can ignore the sidebars when deciding if a site is usable or not.
Guy (
Help!) 07:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.Here we are looking to subject matter experts to tell the readers the difference between the the two mechanisms. We aren't asking their opinion on the media's coverage of firearms and a related crime. Guy thinks even examples such as this should be removed. Previous discussions didn't gain a consensus that the site was unreliable for reviews/technical details of firearms. I assume that, and a local consensus against Guy's (repeated) removal of a useful, technical citation at the AR-15 page. Springee ( talk) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
While we found this well sourced to mostly credible information and institutions, it is very apparent that the aim is to only present info that favors guns and rejects gun control. Although the information is evidence based, it is misleading because they only choose to present one side of this story. We rate this source factual in reporting, but right biased based on its rejection of gun control and somewhat cherry picked information. (D. Van Zandt 7/16/2017)That doesn't sound like something that says don't trust for technical content about the operation of firearms. Springee ( talk) 19:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You argue that we need to use this website because the topic is obscure and there are no better sources. Our core site policies caution against exactly that mindset: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." I've given up hoping that editors—even long-tenured ones—are familiar with these basics, but these discussions can't be conducted in complete ignorance of site policy. MastCell Talk 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." A site about firearms including a number of firearms reviews and a site/author cited by others. You have basically said, "I don't like them". Springee ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. This discussion is about the reliability of a website, not the 2nd Amendment
|
---|
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. So how many states still have a "well-regulated militia"? We call them National Guard, except for those right wing crazies like the Michigan Militia. The National Guard is a well regulated, organized, trained and equipped organization. Well enough to deploy to Iraq. So there is no need for individuals to be armed anymore. Well armed in 1793 were muskets and long rifles, not automatic or semi automatic assault weapons. Does 2nd amendment include the right to bear RPG's and stinger missles.? Who needs these weapons of war, whose rounds are designed for one thing and one thing only, to destroy the human body. Not for hunting. (And hunting is not a sport, the opponent does not know the rules and has no means of defense or offense). The AR-15 for instance uses a .223 round that leaves the barrel at a velocity of over 7,000 fps, when it hits the body it tears through it, tumbling and tearing everything in it's path, causing a wound that if it does not cause instant death, is virtually irreparable, Unlike standard ball ammunition fired from say a 30.06. Low velocity , large caliber rounds kill or disable through hydrostatic shock.which is survivable unlike a .223from an AR-15, unless it passes completely through soft tissue. Point is that the2nd Amendment is purposefully misconstrued and interpreted by gun manufacturers and paranoids who see the government (the very government which they appear to control via their Senate and Prez) as the enemy. Oldperson ( talk) 21:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC) |
technical matters- that's not our requirement. The fact that his blog is a dubious source for factual matters of any kind makes it a dubious source. "We trust him on x, but not y" isn't a thing. Guettarda ( talk) 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be good to ping the editors who were on the fence last time and let them help decide. PackMecEng (not pinged here) was clearly in support for technical aspects last time. Blueboar, commented above so far appears on the fence. Ronz, and feminist seemed like fence sitters last time. If they feel the site isn't accurate for pure technical content then I will acquiesce. Springee ( talk) 12:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
"Thus any mechanical differences are DUE for inclusion in that section."That's not how WP:DUE works. Due weight is based on coverage in reliable sources; if it's hard to find reliable sourcing, it's probably not DUE. – dlthewave ☎ 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The article "Preserving a culture under attack," The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Canada, 4 Oct. 2003, page C3, profiles a local author and states that he has received the Raja Rao Award, which the article describes as "a prestigious honor". Is this a reliable source for the proposition that this award is in fact a prestigious honor? Article is not an editorial, afaict. Hyperbolick ( talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC) @ Arxiloxos, A Sniper, and The Four Deuces: Opinions, since you've dealt with this source before? Hyperbolick ( talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the verifiability of statements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Parental alienation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This caught my eye because it makes a bunch of what look like medical claims without any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to back them up.
I can think of two possible solutions:
Any advice on how to deal with this would be most appreciated. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This probably doesn't need much discussion, but just for the record in case anyone searches archives here in the future, Isaac Mozeson is not a reliable source for linguistics or etymology. Details at Talk:False_cognate#Unreliable sources ( permalink). Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 10:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi my Concern is that i saw this news portal [79] and wanted to know weather this is a reliable source Jhummu Shiv-o-Hum! 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just tell that reliable sources for science journals. In some cases, science journal articles including Nature, Scientific American, and Science. magazines should be verified, when it is reliable or not. -- TaleofTalisman ( talk) 06:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Is the following sources enough to confirm the verification of this material?
I can't figure out if this source is reliable. It was recently used on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article to add contentious material. Thanks for the feedback as always. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 23:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Usable. The source has been effectively republished by a government agency, and is reliable if fully cited and attributed. We do not label sources as "partisan think tanks" unless we have a reliable source doing that labeling. Labeling sources is not a reasonable function for Wikipedia unless we have outside sources doing that labeling which have not been labeled themselves . Simple. I find sources, in fact, calling that foundation "non-partisan." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jamestown-foundation/ https://jamestown.org/program/jamestown-welcomes-new-board-members-michael-carpenter-scott-robins-and-michael-vickers/ etc. Unless having people associated with Joe Biden is horridly right-wing, of course. Collect ( talk) 08:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
"According to criteria established by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program of the University of Pennsylvania, the Brookings Instiution is ranked in their 2017 report as the #1 think-tank in the world,... and the Jamestown Foundation is not listed."- Beyond My Ken.
"Any think tank which perfoms its own creative thinking or research and then publishes it will be a primary source for its own views".- Andy Dingly.
"I would agree that they are reliable for what they think, not for it being a fact".- TDF.
"I would avoid them. The problem is not that their facts are wrong, but that many are selective in what they report."- Slatersteven.
"reliability does not require non-partisanship. While we (the editors of WP) need to be non-partisan (neutral), our sources do not. To maintain our own neutrality, we must present the various non-neutral views on a topic, giving them DUE weight according to the prominence and predominance of the viewpoint."- Blueboar.
"I would say that they're generally not WP:RS for the things people want to cite them for. Normally, anything a think-tank publishes directly is going to fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH; a very small number of high-profile think tanks may have the reputation that would let us use them, but even then, I'd consider them WP:PRIMARY sources for their own views and would generally try to avoid using them for anything controversial."- Aquillon.
Is the following sources enough to confirm the verification of the material?
I remember seeing some place (I don't remember where) that, if you add a phrase or paragraph from an external source that is in a foreign language and you translate that phrase using your own words, you add something like "translated by user". Not sure exactly of the wording, but I do remember seeing something like that. In any case, would it be appropriate to say "Translated by (here inserted name of user who did the translation, for example Maragm). Many thanks, -- Maragm ( talk) 12:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
(I originally posted this comment to the Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard, which was not the place I intended.)
The refs are to TechTarget.com, to ChannelBuzz.ca, and to BlockAndFiles.com articles. Cris Mellor, the author of the BlocksAndFiles.com article, is also an editor for The Register, which is a Situation Publication sister website.
I would think the answer to this question would be an obvious "yes". Even primary-source refs are OK for an article about a business given the caution that "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." In this case the ref'd articles start with a PR announcement of the merger of Retrospect Inc. and StorCentric. However all three articles includes direct quotes and paraphrases of the two CEOs' remarks about those same basic company facts, as well as the CEOs' reasoning behind the merger. The BlocksAndFiles.com article includes analysis by Chris Mellor of where the merged companies would fit into the industry, which one would expect in a secondary-source ref.
However Guy doesn't think so. He deleted the entire fourth paragraph of the former History section of the Retrospect (software) article because for the entire article “There is clear consensus on ANI and elsewhere that the level of detail here is excessive, the content promotional, and the sources lack intellectual independence”.
I'll discuss Guy's claim of "consensus" for the entire article in another section on this page. However IMHO it's clear that any "consensus" should not be used as an excuse for the deletion of a paragraph about the merger using the above three references. DovidBenAvraham ( talk) 10:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit uncertain as to the reliability of this source in the article Online gaming in China, which was written after the publication of this (of which I'm uncertain as to its reliability either). Is a Chinese speaker able to help me with this? I can't decide if its simply out of date information or potentially dubious / unverifiable.
Related discussion here.
Interestingly the wiki article was cited here. -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 12:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Your input is welcome at Talk:America (toilet). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The article 2019–20 Indian Super League season has been continuously been vandalsied by providing materials without without reference and citation by few new users, like Durhum12321, Hasan Ronaldo, Lord Joki as you can visit the article history here and can check recent edits. I have asked several times to these users whenever they provide these unsourced materials to provide reference at the talk page of the article, but was in vain, not a single official source being produced. I have also warned these users multiple times, but of no use. Recently one user named Joel David 99 when asked for his recent edits and warned for disruptive editing and vandalism, the user used personal abuse and was blocked. Similar trend can be seen with the other users to. They are continuously adding one name who is banned from playing, other players name which are not officially annouced but known from several websites and blog. What is the best process to follow to risolve these issue so that these users should not continue such irresponsible editing. Dey subrata ( talk) 19:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Rajavi and the MEK supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and opposed the Afghan mujahedin struggling against it.[1]
Iran experts Flynt Leverett wrote[2] [3]:
Since when did murdering unarmed civilians (and, in some instances, members of their families as well) on public streets in the middle of a heavily populated urban area (Tehran) not meet even the US government's own professed standard for terrorism?
The above has just been added to the People's Mujahedin of Iran article (a controversial subject). Can someone please share their thoughts on whether the sources are reliable enough for inclusion? Thanks all. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 16:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I've come across galaxylollywood and somethinghaute several times this week and both seem dubious at best to me, particularly galaxy as I can't find any "About" or their policy on editorial oversight. I'm inclined to say at the very least galaxylollywood is just a success story on how to refspam and has been used as a result of others seeing it but isn't reliable. I also do not believe that somethinghaute is reliable in general as it's basically one person's blog, though I don't think that is a case of spam. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Is https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide a reliable source to be used at the suicide article? It appears to be very reliable. If it is reliable should we not say what that reliable source says or can editors just paraphrase in a way that is not at all accurate to what the reliable source says. Currently in the opening paragraph of the article it says "Some suicides are impulsive acts due to stress, such as from financial difficulties, troubles with relationships, or bullying" However the reliable source specifically says "relationship break-up" Relationship break-up is something quite distinct from an argument within a relationship for example. It is when an intimate relationship has ended. I tried to include relationship break-up, true to the source but this was overturned with no proper explanation based on the rules for editors at Wikipedia. Please provide some direction. Thank you so much. Patriciamoorehead ( talk) 06:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Lambda Alpha is the international honors society for students of anthropology and the national headquarters publishes a journal, eg [80] which is used as a source here. Hambiliya. We seem to use it a lot. [81] What do people think? Doug Weller talk 19:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 265 | ← | Archive 270 | Archive 271 | Archive 272 | Archive 273 | Archive 274 | Archive 275 |
This website is sort of a repository for PDFs of academic journal articles ( example). A bunch of Wikipedia articles, when citing an academic source, link to PDFs stored there. While certainly convenient to our readers, I wondered how this squares with WP:COPYVIOEL since pretty much all of these journal articles are behind a paywall on the publisher's website ( original source for the example above). I replaced links to PDFs on the website on one page, but before continuing I wanted to double-check whether this is necessary. -- bender235 ( talk) 19:07, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
Sourcesfor their data. As Semantic Scholar is a high-profile site that has not been involved in any legal controversies (as far as I can see), I don't think there is any cause for concern about whether its content is properly licensed. Google Scholar also indexes documents hosted by Semantic Scholar, with no DMCA claims in sight. I wouldn't bother changing Semantic Scholar links to other hosts. — Newslinger talk 06:32, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
Semantic Scholar's FAQs state:
Do you provide articles that are behind paywalls?
We have some articles that are only available behind paywalls, but the data we have for those articles is limited. We plan to expand our coverage and quality of paywalled content in the future. If you are a publisher that would like to see your content in Semantic Scholar, please contact us.
Only a legal professional with visibility into Semantic Scholar's operations can determine with reasonable certainty whether the site's hosted documents comply with copyright laws. Semantic Scholar claims that they have the appropriate licenses for their hosted content, and I don't doubt them. Both Semantic Scholar and its parent organization ( Allen Institute for Artificial Intelligence) have collaborated with a number of universities and academic publishers (see Open Academic Search). — Newslinger talk 07:54, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
I know that PhD dissertations may be acceptable per WP:SCHOLARSHIP, but I'm always hesitant to use them. I think my plan here is solid, but I'd really like a second opinion of what I'd like to do.
I'd like to incorporate information from chapters 3-5 of this dissertation by Christopher Clement into the History of Tobago article. The dissertation comes from the University of Florida, which has a well-respected programme in Caribbean archaeology.
Pages 6-7 of the dissertation outline the overall layout. Chapters 3-5 are historical, and synthesise a mixture of primary sources. The later chapters of the dissertation (6-8) cover Clements field work in Tobago, and have been published elsewhere, in a peer-reviewed journal. I'm not proposing to use those chapters of the dissertation as a source. But I do think that 3-5 are a useful overview of the history of Tobago that I can't really find elsewhere.
Does this reasonable? Guettarda ( talk) 14:08, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
streetlist.co.uk seems like a typical WP:UGC with no sign of editorial oversight. From their about page, it seems that it is maintained by an unknown individual. So, is it considered a reliable source? BTW, it is cited around 13 times on this project. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:31, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This draft: /info/en/?search=Draft:Alcides_S._%22Bull%22_Benini Has three citations. None of which are a publication, but all apparently reliable. An effort is being made to find published sources
There might be a question of his notability because of the questionability of the sources, however Bull Benini survived the Bataan Death March, Japanese Hell ships, went on to "found" Combat Control, which is today folded into Special Tactics Squadrons, of which the 24th STS has produced a Medal of Honor (TSgt John A. Chapman a Combat Controller), and played and are playing vital roles in the Global War on Terrorism,especially in Afghanistan. http://www.cctmemorial.com/Brothers/B/Benini_A/Benini_A.html, https://goefoundation.org/eagles/benini-alcide-s/, http://www.ccshf.org/ccshf-admin/cmsgt-alcide-bull-benini/ ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldperson ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
Nairaland ( nairaland.com) is a Nigerian Internet forum that is currently being cited in 180 articles , frequently in biographies of living persons. As a self-published source that publishes user-generated content, Nairaland should be not be used on Wikipedia in nearly all cases.
Ammarpad requested blacklisting of the Nairaland domain at WP:SBL § Nigerian gossip forum, but was asked to continue the discussion here. Should Nairaland be added to the spam blacklist? — Newslinger talk 08:12, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
I'm seeing articles by David Crane on defensereview.com tagged as self-published. Since he owns the site, that seems reaosnable, but is it a RS? Example article: Atchisson Assault Shotgun. Guy ( Help!) 19:13, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
This website is run by conspiracy theorist Michel Chossudovsky. It's been discussed here since at least 2007, with consensus that it's unreliable. I'm about to add it to my nuke-on-sight list. There are about 160 references to this webshite right now. Guy ( Help!) 21:08, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
I was looking at articles tagged with self-published sources. Articles on military hardware and guns are a goldmine of unreliable self-published websites.
Among others, I found links to liveleak.com (we should have that on the "fuck no" list), globalsecurity.org (comedy gold) and reloadbench.com, which is full of malware so I just blacklisted it. Anyone looking for an amusing half hour, trawl the transclusions of template:self-published inline. [1] for example. This is going to be a long job. Guy ( Help!) 22:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
streetcheck.co.uk is operated by a software company, but it doesn't seem to have any editorial oversight. So, is it considered a reliable source? BTW, it is cited around 30 times on this project. - NitinMlk ( talk) 20:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)
Agar Street ... is one of very few streets that still have a Cobbled road? - NitinMlk ( talk) 19:06, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
The problem: Kennel Club Books, a publishing company that was a somewhat proficient publisher from 2003 to 2005 (per the graph at the link) but was out of business by 2012. I have been unable to confirm or deny if they were a self-publishing source for aspiring authors categorized under Publishing Consultants 20:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC) . The authors they solicited and/or approved for publication may or may not have been dog experts/professionals. The book I'm questioning is The Bully Breeds which is about 6 different dog breeds: American Pit Bull, American Staffordshire Terrier, Boston Terrier, Bull Terrier, Miniature Bull Terrier and the Staffordshire Bull Terrier, all of which are recognized by the AKC. The book is authored by David Harris. Goodreads states: The Bully Breeds is an insider's account of life with a bully, highlighting the characteristics, abilities and accomplishments of these breeds. About the author: David A. Harris is a professional acoustical engineer specializing in architectural and environmental acoustics, product development, and building material research. In the book, Harris included 2 paragraphs (passing mention) about an obscure, unverifiable breed of dog called the Catahoula bulldog. He describes the dog as a crossbreed of the American Bulldog and Catahoula Leopard Dog but all of the published information is anecdotal. He also mentions the Animal Research Foundation (ARF) (long defunct) which appears to have existed as a private for-profit registry founded/owned by an individual. The dogs that were registered by ARF were crossbred dogs that the long-established reputable breed registries would not recognize because they failed the qualifications necessary to be added as purebreds. According to anecdotal reports, ARF was supposed to have been keeping records of the dogs they "registered", but again - it is information based on anecdotal reports. See this Rip-off report, and this wordpress article - there is very little information available about ARF as the key people who supposedly kept records died many years ago.
|
@ Atsme: Your questions have been asked and answered. In review:
Perhaps take further questions to the article's Talk page, or start a new question/discussion on RSN to cover further questions not already asked and answered. — Normal Op ( talk) 02:48, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Les reines de France au temps des Valois, Volume 1, Simone Bertière.
Can this be considered a reliable source? -- Kansas Bear ( talk) 05:59, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
I have been asked to add references to a list of comic book titles before it can be published, and I would like to know if I can use an online comic book store, such as mycomicshop.com, as a reliable secondary source. I would strictly be using this source to confirm that the title exists, and for no other information. Going by the WP:AFFILIATE policy, it sounds like this should be allowed, but I would just like to confirm with someone before I get started on the work of adding the references. Thank you. Wilkinswontkins ( talk) 17:30, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Is the The Grayzone ( https://thegrayzone.com) reliable? Max Blumenthal, Anya Parampil and Benjamin Norton and other editors have participated in the highly politicized Foro de São Paulo in Caracas 2019. Benjamin Norton has even expressed “and long live socialism,” in response to Nicolás Maduro "Long live peace". WaPo describes it as a "far-left media outlet". [33] It does not seem very reliable for Venezuelan news, is The Grayzone even reliable on any subject?-- MaoGo ( talk) 09:15, 26 August 2019 (UTC)
an avowedly anti-communist organizationand insinuate that the ISO's logo of a raised fist, a symbol historically associated with anticapitalist movements (as well as others), was somehow connected to Otpor, a Serbian protest organization which the Grayzone describes as being
US government funded. Moreover, the claim that Otpor was funded by the US government is supported with a link to another Grayzone article which does not include that claim, but instead states that the members of Otpor went on to form Centre for Applied Nonviolent Action and Strategies (true) which is funded through the National Endowment for Democracy (citation needed). Our article on CANVAS claims that CANVAS does not receive funding from governments and that most of the funding comes from the organization's founder, citing Mother Jones and Foreign Policy. signed, Rosguill talk 02:28, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
Recently an editor inserted information on Donald Barr which uses Milne News as a source.
However, other sources dispute the claim that Barr hired Epstein as Barr had resigned his position at the school some eight months before Epstein began teaching there. According to the school newspaper, Epstein came aboard in September of 1974 for the new school year.
There are many online news sources with which I lack familiarity, but on a cursory look at their published content, it appears to me Milne might not meet the standard for RS. Does anyone have any history with this source? Is my impression incorrect? BusterD ( talk) 04:22, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"team of Journalists, analysts and contributors", but it does not name any of them. None of the articles on the site list their authors. Milne News also has a tendency to promote conspiracy theories, including George Soros conspiracy theories in "Radical Leftwing Groups Linked to Soros Are Being Transported In To Protest This Week’s Kavanaugh Hearings", as well as "The collusion between the FBI and Mainstream Media that everyone stopped talking about", which claims that
"The bottom line is the mainstream media colluded with agents and executives at every level of the FBI to try to affect the results of the 2016 presidential election."— Newslinger talk 04:56, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The existence of such a letter is not under dispute. It is mentioned with due detail in the California Archives website:
Resolution of the TsK KPSS Secretariat approving a response to a letter from M. Rajavi, leader of the Mujahedin [Holy Warriors] Organization of the Iranian People, to M. Gorbachev, and to a request submitted by the organization; two copies of instructions to the Soviet Embassy in Bulgaria to be delivered in ciphered form by the Committee for State Security (KGB); extract from the minutes of the TsK KPSS Secretariat; memorandum to the TsK KPSS from R. Ulianovskii, Deputy Chief of the International Department; letter to Gorbachev from Rajavi (translated into Russian) and the original letter in Persian; statement with information about the collection of documents attached to the letter from Rajavi; memorandum (translated into Russian) to the TsK KPSS from F. Olfat, member of the Politburo of the Mujahedin Organization, and the original letter in Persian requesting that the TsK KPSS lend any amount of money (up to US$300,000,000) to the Mujahedin Organization; memorandum to the TsK KPSS from Olfat, (translated into Russian) and the original letter in Persian requesting that the supporters of the Mujahedin Organization be allowed to cross the Soviet-Iranian border and be granted a temporary asylum in the Soviet Union, 1985 December - 1986 February
For those who are familiar with Farsi the content of the letter shown in the image exactly matches with what is noted in the California archives website. It thus boils down to whether we can rely on sources such as Radio Koocheh or Hamneshin-e-Bahar who posted the image of the letter online. To begin with both the above mentioned sources are not accessible inside Iran. The existing Iranian government censors these websites (along with many others) because of these websites' criticisms toward itself. So there is no way one can claim the two mentioned sources have a dog in this fight. Secondly, Radiokoocheh is a US based Radio/News website founded by a journalist, named Ardavan Rouzbeh, whose work is cited by BBC here. No need to mention that Rouzbeh, himself was banned by the Iranian government from journalism activities and had to leave the country. Am I right thinking, given that the content of the letter is a verified fact, it is safe to rely on Radio Koochech for the image of the letter?-- 178.252.149.137 ( talk) 07:08, 27 August 2019 (UTC)
Is The Intercept a reliable source? I used this reference article—which was co-published with the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting—in the 2019 Brazil wildfires article in this paragraph. The editor who removed it said on the talk page that The Intercept was not a reliable source for scientific statements.
The Amazon River basin, which is about the size of Australia, is covered in a dense vegetation including 400 billion trees. The dense moisture-filled forest "exhales a fifth of the oxygen" on the planet; it stores carbon that is centuries old, and "deflects and consumes an unknown but significant amount of solar heat." [1] The Amazon rainforest "fuels planet-scale systems" including atmospheric rivers as 20 percent of the world's fresh water passes through cycles in this rainforest. [1] Since the 1970s, Brazil has cut and burned about 20 percent of the forest representing 300,000 square miles (776,996 km2)—which is larger than Texas. [1]
In recent years, "land-grabbers" (grileiros) have been illegally cutting deep into the forest in "Brazil's Indigenous territories and other protected forests throughout the Amazon". Since the October election, they have been cutting in the land of the previously isolated Apurinã in Amazonas, where the the "world's largest standing tracts of unbroken rainforest" are found. [1]
References
Thanks. Oceanflynn ( talk) 00:34, 23 August 2019 (UTC)
"strive to hold the powerful accountable with truthful and aggressive reporting". The policies
"recognize that writers have a point of view", but also list procedures for soliciting responses from subjects, attributing sources, correcting errors, and publishing updates. Biased, but generally reliable for news topics. — Newslinger talk 00:47, 25 August 2019 (UTC)
"exhales a fifth of the oxygen"quote. I see that the
"exhales a fifth of the oxygen"claim was the subject of a fact check by other news sources in the last few days. Since even news agencies Associated Press ( RSP entry) and Reuters ( RSP entry) (both of whose articles are republished by many publications) made the same claim, I'm concluding that the mistake is part of the systemic issue of news sources being less rigorous than academic sources for this type of scientific claim. The Intercept is still generally reliable for news topics, within the limitations of a news source. — Newslinger talk 03:52, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
Gaël Duval's piece in Hacker Noon, "Leaving Apple & Google: How is /e/ actually Google-free?" is being used to cite the following statement in the /e/ (operating system) article:
In March 2019, Duval wrote, "I’m very pleased that some security and privacy experts are starting to have a close look at /e/, and are challenging what we are doing," and thanked InfoSec Handbook experts for their review, which concluded, “While /e/ looks promising, it isn’t Google-free by now.”
[1]
References
Since Duval is the developer of /e/, this can be considered a primary source. However, there is also the question of how much weight to assign to the Hacker Noon piece, since it has not been mentioned in other reliable sources. The piece refers to the InfoSec Handbook piece "/e/ – privacy-enabled Android ROM, or Evil Corp?", which is not directly cited in the /e/ (operating system) article.
Hacker Noon ( hackernoon.com) was formerly a Medium ( RSP entry) publication on its own domain name, before it transitioned to its own platform (on the same domain) earlier this year. Hacker Noon does not have staff writers: all of its articles are contributed. Their about page states that their contributors are unpaid.
InfoSec Handbook (
infosec-handbook.eu) is "a growing community of European information security professionals and privacy activists who like to share their knowledge for free"
. They have an
about us page.
Are Hacker Noon and InfoSec Handbook reliable sources for the /e/ (operating system) article? — Newslinger talk 03:29, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
Re: "Leaving Apple & Google: How is /e/ actually Google-free?"
In addition to being publicised and discussed in /e/'s own blog and forums, the same article has been published a few places. Two more are:
https://medium.com/hackernoon/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free-1ba24e29efb9
https://www.indidea.org/gael/blog/leaving-apple-google-how-is-e-actually-google-free/
The article received some attention at reddit:
https://www.reddit.com/r/degoogle/comments/clj3qp/leaving_apple_google_how_is_e_actually_googlefree/
In addition, at indidea, and at medium.com, Duval published the following supplement comment, referring to /e/'s tracking of the issues in their GitLab:
"Gaël Duval April 29, 2019
All those points have been converted to issues in our GitLab: https://gitlab.e.foundation/search?group_id=&project_id=&repository_ref=&scope=issues&search=Infosec+Handbook+Review "
This shows a large amount of importance given to the issues raised, and to the expertise of the people publishing the criticisms (InfoSec Handbook).
I support giving significant weight to the criticisms addressed in the articles (and tracked in the Gitlab).
Re: InfoSec Handbook as a reliable source.
Search engine test: Startpage Search for criticism of /e/ foundation or eelo sometimes show "/e/ – privacy-enabled Android ROM, or Evil Corp?" by InfoSec Handbook as Number 1 result. Search for /e/ foundation or eelo shows InfoSec Handbook articles among the top.
It is recognized as expert by Duval and /e/ foundation staff who are tracking and working on the issues raised (only half are closed so far).
In their about page, the wide range of activities described illustrate expertise in the subjects. The stated credentials, backgrounds and experiences are impressive.
The site is non-profit and self-funded (i.e. independent).
Privacytools.io has an open, deliberative process for determining whether to endorse software as privacy-respecting tools. In deciding NOT to endorce /e/ (yet), weight was given to issues raised at InfoSec Handbook:
https://github.com/privacytoolsIO/privacytools.io/issues/864
I support InfoSec Handbook as a reliable source. -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:33, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
"high-quality reliable sources", and all of the above falls short. If Duval responds to a non-notable group blog in his own blog post, and neither blog is covered by a secondary reliable source, then it is likely that both blog posts should be excluded as undue weight. Also, we don't consider results from search engines (including Startpage) as a factor in determining whether a source is reliable. WP:V states,
"Articles must be based on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", and with the lack of reliable independent secondary source coverage of these publications, I'm not seeing much of a reputation here for either Hacker Noon or InfoSec Handbook. — Newslinger talk 22:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The search engine test is an inappropriate replacement for our verifiability policy, which I've quoted above. When the /e/ (operating system) article has coverage in reliable sources such as Linux Journal, ZDNet ( RSP entry), TechRepublic, Le Monde informatique, and The Register ( RSP entry) already cited in the article, it shouldn't be difficult to add content based on those secondary sources and minimize content based on primary sources.
Has the InfoSec Handbook blog ever been covered by a reliable source? Without a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, it should be considered a self-published source, which is generally unreliable. — Newslinger talk 17:39, 31 August 2019 (UTC)
"Medium is a blog hosting service. As a self-published source, it is considered generally unreliable and should be avoided unless the author is a subject-matter expert or the blog is used for uncontroversial self-descriptions. Medium should never be used as a secondary source for living persons."
Duval describes infosec-handbook.eu as experts. No one has raised any controversy regarding the accuracy of their work and conclusions regarding /e/. What they say is not controversial or exceptional claims. Half of the 12 issues being tracked in e's gitlab are still open. This is a good start on a record of fact checking and accuracy, at least on this topic.
So few secondary sources cover /e/ as it is, that the request for deletion included accusations of using meat puppets. Also, the article was created by someone with close ties to /e/, Manoj: community leader. Yes, some articles have appeared, but most of them are based on interviews of Duval or regurgitating pieces of his blog articles.
It would be great if other secondary sources had covered one of the very few other secondary sources that cover /e/, but that's asking too much in this case. In this case, on this topic, the two articles Infosec-handbook.eu has published appear to be reliable and accurate. We should be able to give this some weight in the article, as it was given a lot of weight by the subject founder and staff, even if we call this a "generally unreliable" source.
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion//e/_mobile_operating_system
https://e.foundation/about-e/#people -- Yae4 ( talk) 14:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
HackerNoon is a group blog, and a substantially crypto/blockchain blog at that. Perhaps it has interesting OR that looks useful for some articles, but it's a primary source at best - David Gerard ( talk) 14:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
While Nickiswift.com (and its parent, Zergnet) have never been the subject of discussion here at RSN, there appears to have been a largely unspoken view that they are not a reliable source of information. As per a discussion at BLPN (
here), a consensus emerged that thinks that the site is not reliable.
It seems advisable to make a note of that here, as a lot of editors check here to make sure that sources haven't been questioned before. -
Jack Sebastian (
talk) 18:48, 1 September 2019 (UTC)
Plenty of entertainment brands tackle Hollywood, but Nicki Swift stands apart in style and smarts. Spending time with us is like hanging out with friends who keep the conversation clever, quick, and classy. We dish out the good stuff on all your favorite celebs, add expert analysis, then move on to the next hot topic, all without breaking a sweat.This does not sound like a website who provides reliable
Selfdescribes as " Celebrity obsessed." Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 06:01, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
I have opened a new RfC at Talk:Paul_Stamets#RfC_about_description_of_Paul_Stamets_in_the_lede, where input would be helpful. Part of the issue is whether the sources provided are sufficient or insufficient to establish use of the term 'mycologist' for describing Stamets. Dialectric ( talk) 15:06, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
https://issuesinsights.com/2019/08/15/tehran-admits-strength-of-irans-democratic-resistance/
Can this be a reliable source for this statement - "This widespread endorsement of regime change prompted Khamenei to acknowledge the organizational role of the MEK and the “resistance units” operating throughout Iranian society."
This is in People's Mujahedin of Iran.
Barca ( talk) 11:01, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
A recent IP edit of United States anti-abortion movement (see [35]) cites a source from the journal "SAGE Open Medicine" (see [36]) supporting a claim about the supposed unreliability of research on abortion and the alleged mental health risks from abortion that seems to conflict with the scientific consensus. Is the cited source MEDRS, or should the edits be reverted? Thanks. NightHeron ( talk) 00:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I'll start by noting that author David Reardon is an anti-abortion activist, and his expertise is in Electrical Engineering, not medicine. Despite this, he is very well published in this field, but then he also went and got a fake PhD in biomedical ethics from a diploma mill. So that may cause this to be rejected as RS, (certainly as MEDRS), but I think the review is remarkably fair. I mean, this is a very long review with over 200 references and many finer points, but overall he's drawing a few very uncontroversial conclusions: A) There is a significant correlation between abortion (both having had one and seeking one) and mental health issues; B) Not all women who have post-abortion mental health issues had previously been diagnosed with mental health issues; C) To some extent these issues can be predicted; and D) There is no ethical experiment that could test whether carrying a baby to term is better for a mother's mental health than abortion, either generally or in specific risk groups. In sort of 'principle of embarrassment'-type-admission that might imply reliability, this review also cites "exposure to anti-abortion picketers" as the most common risk factor predicting post-abortion mental health issues("most common" here != strongest correlation, btw). The most controversial statement I can find is the suggestion that there is a publication bias in favor of theories and findings supporting pro-life viewpoints on the part of both editors and reviewers as well as authors themselves. Specifically he points to the fact that some abortion-related data is gathered and theoretically available but never published, which I have noticed myself in the past and attributed to some people just not wanting to touch it with a ten foot pole. Someguy1221 ( talk) 08:58, 30 August 2019 (UTC)
I would like to site as source the articles of incorporation of a Delaware company. These records are by law filed with the registrar of corporations, and in principle subject to mandatory provision to anyone who request by the freedom of information act. However, they are not available for on-line search. How can I satisfy Wikipedia’s verifiable source rule? Thank you for help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tonyinhanoi ( talk • contribs) 00:11, 28 August 2019 (UTC)
I recommend using the {{
Cite web}} template with the Entity Search website as the url
(https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx
) and the company's
File Number as the id
. For example, here's how I would cite
Google LLC:
{{Cite web | url = https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/eCorp/EntitySearch/NameSearch.aspx | title = Division of Corporations - Filing | website = General Information Name Search | publisher = [[Secretary of State of Delaware]] | id = [https://icis.corp.delaware.gov/Ecorp/FieldDesc.aspx#FILE%20NUMBER File Number] 3582691 }}
The result is:
"Division of Corporations - Filing". General Information Name Search. Secretary of State of Delaware. File Number 3582691.
These entries (and all equivalents to articles of incorporation) are primary sources. They can be used for uncontroversial details, but not for original research. They do not count toward a company's notability, since every Delaware company has one. — Newslinger talk 09:57, 29 August 2019 (UTC)
SANDRP (South Asia Network on Dams, Rivers and People) runs a "blog site" where various environmental concerns are reported. They process humongous amounts of data available from various public and private sources to produce useful analyses. Here is a
sample article on the power generation performance of various hydroelectric projects on the Chenab river (a key river shared between India and Pakistan through the
Indus Waters Treaty). And
here is a somewhat more controversial article that says "This means the project envisages sediment flushing by drawdown ... This is clearly not allowed under PCA [Permanent Court of Arbitration] order cited above on Indus Treaty.
"
Are we allowed to use facts and information available from the site cautiously, attributing it where necessary? -- Kautilya3 ( talk) 08:46, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Are any of http://gimn1567.ru/ , http://elib.biblioatom.ru/ , http://www.famhist.ru/ , and http://www.peoples.ru/ reliable sources, particularly for biographical information? They're Russian sites, and I can't evaluate them. Jayjg (talk) 18:36, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
the collection, systematization and provision of free network access of various documents and publications, sometimes unique and inaccessible, reflecting the creation and development of the nuclear industry, nuclear weapons and nuclear energy [in the USSR and Russian Federation].The historical nature of some of the texts hosted on the site should be taken into account when evaluating their reliability for a given claim.
My two cents:
Hope that helped. — Ynhockey ( Talk) 18:34, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Iamsnag12 ( talk · contribs), an eight-year-old account with less than 100 edits, has repeatedly added the same non-reliable source to multiple articles. The first four times on 14 August: [38] [39] [40] [41]
Upon removal as a non-RS, user promptly readded without discussion on 15 August: [42] [43] [44] [45].
User was reported to ANI and alerted to discretionary sanctions [46], and on 20 August, the material was removed from the four pages by admin User:JzG as a non-RS. [47] [48] [49] [50]
On 31 August, the user re-added the same source for a ninth and tenth time. Also posted to ANI. Feoffer ( talk) 07:00, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
IMDb is mentioned under WP:UGC. So it is not a RS? IMDb is used on many WP articles - articles on movies, TV series, etc. I have also used IMDb as a source on an article I have created. Should I remove it? Puduḫepa 20:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Anybody have the link handy to our collection of free public historical newspaper archives? I swear I've used this a dozen times before, but I don't remember where it's at. GMG talk 10:34, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I have been directed here by a user from Teahouse as I approached the platform for help regarding understanding Wikipedia's policy for using any video as a reference in an article. The context and required information is as following: B. M. Kutty is an article created by me few days back. In the article besides other news sources I have used a video hosted by YouTube as reference. When I nominated the article for DYK the reviewer asked me to not use the video as a reference because according to the user YouTube videos are generally not considered reliable. I understand that anyone can publish his/her work on YouTube including original research and why some people might not find YouTube as a reliable source but this is NOT about YouTube. The concerned video is uploaded by the official channel of The Print which in my opinion is a reliable news source and the video is authored by Shekhar Gupta, a renowned journalist and recipient of Indian's third highest civilian award. I am very new to Wikipedia and might not understand its policies like other experienced editors but I found nowhere where it says a video hosted by YouTube can't be used as a reference. Whether that video is a reliable or not can be a moot point but blanket ban on videos must not be a policy, IMHO. Regards. -- Deepak G Goswami ( talk) 10:15, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
Is Social Justice (journal), a peer reviewed academic journal focused on social justice issues a reliable source on the status of democracy in Venezuela, and possible democratic backsliding there? There's a debate regarding this here- Talk:Democratic_backsliding#Low-quality_sources_used_to_rebut_DB_in_Venezuelahere, with some editors claiming that because it a "Marxist journal", it is fringe. Here come the Suns ( talk) 16:05, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm still finding references to this site tagged as {{ sps}}. There was a reading of "rough consensus" of "meh" before, but I am still seeing statements on the site, linked to the articles we're citing, like "NASCAR, home to a huge percentage of Hillary Clinton’s basket of deplorables, wants to ban ads featuring America’s favorite rifle? That would be like banning ads for motor oil or beer", which is clear polemic. Reliability? this, featured on the main page today, seems like a random "readers' guns" submission. And then there's " Sandy Hook Elementary School Massacre: The Mainstream Media Cover-Up Continues from 2017. "aiding and abetting the enemies of the Second Amendment is one thing. Downplaying and/or ignoring vital information about the Sandy Hook spree killing is another." I also find Gun Confiscation for Dummies: ‘Red Flag’ Laws Are Gorified SWAT-ing" disturbing: in what way is removing guns from [https://www.oregonlive.com/news/2019/08/an-ex-marine-said-hed-slaughter-antifa-the-fbi-using-oregons-new-red-flag-law-took-his-guns-away.html peple threatening to go on a shooting spree similar to [[2017 Wichita swatting |actually getting people gunned down]]? " Even The Obama Administration Knew That Banning Bump Fire Stocks Was Illegal", " The greatest gun salesman in the history of the world has let it be known that he’s a fan of the Parkland students and their efforts to reduce and restrict Americans’ Second Amendment rights".
So, not Alex Jones but certainly Daily Caller levels of paranoid. And the comments. Oh, dear, the comments :-( Unashamedly a gun advocacy, anti-gun-control site "I recently threatenedpromised to publish pro-gun control content on this site. Readers ready to man The Walls of the City oppose the idea. Why give the enemy aid and comfort? Suffice it to say, TTAG is no more a false flag operation than Bar Refaeli is . . . well . . . you know. I simply believe in the Bob Hoskins philosophy. The more we know about gun control advocates’ thinking [sic] the more we’re able to lure fence sitters: Americans who don’t have the info or critical thinking skills to deconstruct disarmament deception—no matter how illogical.
[52] - so firmly nailed to the
minority view in America that all gun control is bad. Which is fine, if that's your bag, but Wikipedia isn't for advocacy.
I don't have much to do with gun politics articles (I'm English, the entire thing looks bonkers to anyone who isn't American), but this site looks to me to be in the same category as Occupy, Daily Caller and others who publish some valid material but with such a clear agenda that we should be avoiding use here. An "uncontroversial" fact doesn't isolate a source that self-identifies as "The People of the Gun" from being controversial. Especially when they are arguing that
"false flag" / ANTIFA conspiracy theories should be given more prominence by YouTube. I really don't think we need this site to tell us things like the cartridge weight of a specific gun. In fact, from the outside, it looks as if some
WP:COATRACKing has been going on over the years. I don't think we can ignore the sidebars when deciding if a site is usable or not.
Guy (
Help!) 07:44, 2 September 2019 (UTC)
The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content.Here we are looking to subject matter experts to tell the readers the difference between the the two mechanisms. We aren't asking their opinion on the media's coverage of firearms and a related crime. Guy thinks even examples such as this should be removed. Previous discussions didn't gain a consensus that the site was unreliable for reviews/technical details of firearms. I assume that, and a local consensus against Guy's (repeated) removal of a useful, technical citation at the AR-15 page. Springee ( talk) 10:51, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
While we found this well sourced to mostly credible information and institutions, it is very apparent that the aim is to only present info that favors guns and rejects gun control. Although the information is evidence based, it is misleading because they only choose to present one side of this story. We rate this source factual in reporting, but right biased based on its rejection of gun control and somewhat cherry picked information. (D. Van Zandt 7/16/2017)That doesn't sound like something that says don't trust for technical content about the operation of firearms. Springee ( talk) 19:11, 3 September 2019 (UTC)
You argue that we need to use this website because the topic is obscure and there are no better sources. Our core site policies caution against exactly that mindset: "if the information in question is suitable for inclusion, someone else will probably have published it in independent reliable sources." I've given up hoping that editors—even long-tenured ones—are familiar with these basics, but these discussions can't be conducted in complete ignorance of site policy. MastCell Talk 01:01, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Wikipedia article and is an appropriate source for that content." A site about firearms including a number of firearms reviews and a site/author cited by others. You have basically said, "I don't like them". Springee ( talk) 00:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)
WP:NOTAFORUM. This discussion is about the reliability of a website, not the 2nd Amendment
|
---|
A well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. So how many states still have a "well-regulated militia"? We call them National Guard, except for those right wing crazies like the Michigan Militia. The National Guard is a well regulated, organized, trained and equipped organization. Well enough to deploy to Iraq. So there is no need for individuals to be armed anymore. Well armed in 1793 were muskets and long rifles, not automatic or semi automatic assault weapons. Does 2nd amendment include the right to bear RPG's and stinger missles.? Who needs these weapons of war, whose rounds are designed for one thing and one thing only, to destroy the human body. Not for hunting. (And hunting is not a sport, the opponent does not know the rules and has no means of defense or offense). The AR-15 for instance uses a .223 round that leaves the barrel at a velocity of over 7,000 fps, when it hits the body it tears through it, tumbling and tearing everything in it's path, causing a wound that if it does not cause instant death, is virtually irreparable, Unlike standard ball ammunition fired from say a 30.06. Low velocity , large caliber rounds kill or disable through hydrostatic shock.which is survivable unlike a .223from an AR-15, unless it passes completely through soft tissue. Point is that the2nd Amendment is purposefully misconstrued and interpreted by gun manufacturers and paranoids who see the government (the very government which they appear to control via their Senate and Prez) as the enemy. Oldperson ( talk) 21:48, 3 September 2019 (UTC) |
technical matters- that's not our requirement. The fact that his blog is a dubious source for factual matters of any kind makes it a dubious source. "We trust him on x, but not y" isn't a thing. Guettarda ( talk) 12:45, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps it would be good to ping the editors who were on the fence last time and let them help decide. PackMecEng (not pinged here) was clearly in support for technical aspects last time. Blueboar, commented above so far appears on the fence. Ronz, and feminist seemed like fence sitters last time. If they feel the site isn't accurate for pure technical content then I will acquiesce. Springee ( talk) 12:44, 4 September 2019 (UTC)
"Thus any mechanical differences are DUE for inclusion in that section."That's not how WP:DUE works. Due weight is based on coverage in reliable sources; if it's hard to find reliable sourcing, it's probably not DUE. – dlthewave ☎ 23:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)
The article "Preserving a culture under attack," The Ottawa Citizen, Ottawa, Canada, 4 Oct. 2003, page C3, profiles a local author and states that he has received the Raja Rao Award, which the article describes as "a prestigious honor". Is this a reliable source for the proposition that this award is in fact a prestigious honor? Article is not an editorial, afaict. Hyperbolick ( talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC) @ Arxiloxos, A Sniper, and The Four Deuces: Opinions, since you've dealt with this source before? Hyperbolick ( talk) 19:33, 9 September 2019 (UTC)
There is a request for comment on the verifiability of statements in the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act article. If you are interested, please participate at Talk:Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act § RfC: Recent additions. — Newslinger talk 05:04, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
Parental alienation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
This caught my eye because it makes a bunch of what look like medical claims without any WP:MEDRS-compliant sources to back them up.
I can think of two possible solutions:
Any advice on how to deal with this would be most appreciated. -- Guy Macon ( talk) 03:18, 11 September 2019 (UTC)
This probably doesn't need much discussion, but just for the record in case anyone searches archives here in the future, Isaac Mozeson is not a reliable source for linguistics or etymology. Details at Talk:False_cognate#Unreliable sources ( permalink). Thanks, Mathglot ( talk) 10:52, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hi my Concern is that i saw this news portal [79] and wanted to know weather this is a reliable source Jhummu Shiv-o-Hum! 18:24, 12 September 2019 (UTC)
Hello, I just tell that reliable sources for science journals. In some cases, science journal articles including Nature, Scientific American, and Science. magazines should be verified, when it is reliable or not. -- TaleofTalisman ( talk) 06:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Is the following sources enough to confirm the verification of this material?
I can't figure out if this source is reliable. It was recently used on the People's Mujahedin of Iran article to add contentious material. Thanks for the feedback as always. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 23:39, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
Usable. The source has been effectively republished by a government agency, and is reliable if fully cited and attributed. We do not label sources as "partisan think tanks" unless we have a reliable source doing that labeling. Labeling sources is not a reasonable function for Wikipedia unless we have outside sources doing that labeling which have not been labeled themselves . Simple. I find sources, in fact, calling that foundation "non-partisan." https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-jamestown-foundation/ https://jamestown.org/program/jamestown-welcomes-new-board-members-michael-carpenter-scott-robins-and-michael-vickers/ etc. Unless having people associated with Joe Biden is horridly right-wing, of course. Collect ( talk) 08:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
"According to criteria established by the Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program of the University of Pennsylvania, the Brookings Instiution is ranked in their 2017 report as the #1 think-tank in the world,... and the Jamestown Foundation is not listed."- Beyond My Ken.
"Any think tank which perfoms its own creative thinking or research and then publishes it will be a primary source for its own views".- Andy Dingly.
"I would agree that they are reliable for what they think, not for it being a fact".- TDF.
"I would avoid them. The problem is not that their facts are wrong, but that many are selective in what they report."- Slatersteven.
"reliability does not require non-partisanship. While we (the editors of WP) need to be non-partisan (neutral), our sources do not. To maintain our own neutrality, we must present the various non-neutral views on a topic, giving them DUE weight according to the prominence and predominance of the viewpoint."- Blueboar.
"I would say that they're generally not WP:RS for the things people want to cite them for. Normally, anything a think-tank publishes directly is going to fall under WP:SELFPUBLISH; a very small number of high-profile think tanks may have the reputation that would let us use them, but even then, I'd consider them WP:PRIMARY sources for their own views and would generally try to avoid using them for anything controversial."- Aquillon.
Is the following sources enough to confirm the verification of the material?
I remember seeing some place (I don't remember where) that, if you add a phrase or paragraph from an external source that is in a foreign language and you translate that phrase using your own words, you add something like "translated by user". Not sure exactly of the wording, but I do remember seeing something like that. In any case, would it be appropriate to say "Translated by (here inserted name of user who did the translation, for example Maragm). Many thanks, -- Maragm ( talk) 12:21, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
(I originally posted this comment to the Wikipedia:No_original_research/Noticeboard, which was not the place I intended.)
The refs are to TechTarget.com, to ChannelBuzz.ca, and to BlockAndFiles.com articles. Cris Mellor, the author of the BlocksAndFiles.com article, is also an editor for The Register, which is a Situation Publication sister website.
I would think the answer to this question would be an obvious "yes". Even primary-source refs are OK for an article about a business given the caution that "The organization's own website is an acceptable (although possibly incomplete) primary source for information about what the company says about itself and for most basic facts about its history, products, employees, finances, and facilities." In this case the ref'd articles start with a PR announcement of the merger of Retrospect Inc. and StorCentric. However all three articles includes direct quotes and paraphrases of the two CEOs' remarks about those same basic company facts, as well as the CEOs' reasoning behind the merger. The BlocksAndFiles.com article includes analysis by Chris Mellor of where the merged companies would fit into the industry, which one would expect in a secondary-source ref.
However Guy doesn't think so. He deleted the entire fourth paragraph of the former History section of the Retrospect (software) article because for the entire article “There is clear consensus on ANI and elsewhere that the level of detail here is excessive, the content promotional, and the sources lack intellectual independence”.
I'll discuss Guy's claim of "consensus" for the entire article in another section on this page. However IMHO it's clear that any "consensus" should not be used as an excuse for the deletion of a paragraph about the merger using the above three references. DovidBenAvraham ( talk) 10:28, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
I'm a bit uncertain as to the reliability of this source in the article Online gaming in China, which was written after the publication of this (of which I'm uncertain as to its reliability either). Is a Chinese speaker able to help me with this? I can't decide if its simply out of date information or potentially dubious / unverifiable.
Related discussion here.
Interestingly the wiki article was cited here. -- [E.3] [chat2] [me] 12:15, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Your input is welcome at Talk:America (toilet). Gråbergs Gråa Sång ( talk) 07:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
The article 2019–20 Indian Super League season has been continuously been vandalsied by providing materials without without reference and citation by few new users, like Durhum12321, Hasan Ronaldo, Lord Joki as you can visit the article history here and can check recent edits. I have asked several times to these users whenever they provide these unsourced materials to provide reference at the talk page of the article, but was in vain, not a single official source being produced. I have also warned these users multiple times, but of no use. Recently one user named Joel David 99 when asked for his recent edits and warned for disruptive editing and vandalism, the user used personal abuse and was blocked. Similar trend can be seen with the other users to. They are continuously adding one name who is banned from playing, other players name which are not officially annouced but known from several websites and blog. What is the best process to follow to risolve these issue so that these users should not continue such irresponsible editing. Dey subrata ( talk) 19:27, 19 September 2019 (UTC)
Rajavi and the MEK supported the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, and opposed the Afghan mujahedin struggling against it.[1]
Iran experts Flynt Leverett wrote[2] [3]:
Since when did murdering unarmed civilians (and, in some instances, members of their families as well) on public streets in the middle of a heavily populated urban area (Tehran) not meet even the US government's own professed standard for terrorism?
The above has just been added to the People's Mujahedin of Iran article (a controversial subject). Can someone please share their thoughts on whether the sources are reliable enough for inclusion? Thanks all. Stefka Bulgaria ( talk) 16:38, 14 September 2019 (UTC)
References
I've come across galaxylollywood and somethinghaute several times this week and both seem dubious at best to me, particularly galaxy as I can't find any "About" or their policy on editorial oversight. I'm inclined to say at the very least galaxylollywood is just a success story on how to refspam and has been used as a result of others seeing it but isn't reliable. I also do not believe that somethinghaute is reliable in general as it's basically one person's blog, though I don't think that is a case of spam. Praxidicae ( talk) 16:00, 20 September 2019 (UTC)
Is https://www.who.int/en/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/suicide a reliable source to be used at the suicide article? It appears to be very reliable. If it is reliable should we not say what that reliable source says or can editors just paraphrase in a way that is not at all accurate to what the reliable source says. Currently in the opening paragraph of the article it says "Some suicides are impulsive acts due to stress, such as from financial difficulties, troubles with relationships, or bullying" However the reliable source specifically says "relationship break-up" Relationship break-up is something quite distinct from an argument within a relationship for example. It is when an intimate relationship has ended. I tried to include relationship break-up, true to the source but this was overturned with no proper explanation based on the rules for editors at Wikipedia. Please provide some direction. Thank you so much. Patriciamoorehead ( talk) 06:47, 18 September 2019 (UTC)
Lambda Alpha is the international honors society for students of anthropology and the national headquarters publishes a journal, eg [80] which is used as a source here. Hambiliya. We seem to use it a lot. [81] What do people think? Doug Weller talk 19:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC)