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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Living Waters Publications (a close associate of The Way of the Master, a US ministry) puts out this press release. Inspire, a small and obscure UK religious magazine (semi-free, with 'subscription' apparently only available directly from the publisher [1]) puts a brief précis of this press release on their website here (with not indication that it is published in their hardcopy magazine). Is this a reliable source? I believe that it blatantly is not, but User:American Eagle insists strenuously (based upon no apparent reason than his only personal opinion/belief) that it is. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It is also an inaccurate précis, in that it states that "US based Living Waters Publications has sold more than 20 million Million Dollar Bills gospel tracts" (which is included in the article) when the PR only stated "More than 20 million million dollar bills have been given away". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've nominated Franklin Knight Lane for FA, and I'm considering using this reference for biographical information about Lane (I am actually using it at present for info on the fund which is in Lane's name at Cal, which is permissible under WP:SELFPUB). Here is the bio of the guy, Levin, who wrote the profile on Lane. Reason I'd really like to mine this article for bio info on Lane is that people have expressed concern during the FAC about my use of a biographical outline which is in a volume of letters written by Lane, published after his death. Here is the link to the FAC if anyone is interested.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Warren is a prominent religious figure in the US. Obama chose Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. This created controversy. Some editors claim that the invocation controversy is not notable. And they claim that the current wording of the article accurately explains that controversy. Current wording is simply this: "The decision angered pro-choice and LGBT advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[15]" without any explanation as to why. They are opposing addition of more information eventhough it has many reliable sources. Please comment in: Talk:Rick_Warren#Warren.2C_invocation.2C_views_on_homosexuality Phoenix of9 ( talk) 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This article has been through a slow-moving edit war over the last few months, between SPAs who cannot write anything positive about Ferguson and SPAs who cannot write anything negative about him. I've been trying to help out, but the number of sources currently in the article that I think are bunk has gotten ridiculous (and no one's paying attention to my talk page requests for better sourcing, anyway). Could an uninvolved party come in and take a look? Thanks. Dori ( Talk • Contribs) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There is user-written content here on the BBC site; doesn't appear to be a reliable source on BBC. Opinions? -- btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that this website is not a RS as it is a partisan/sectarian promotional thinktank. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Packt, a reliable sources and more specifically their awards competition for open source content management systems. A few CMS articles ( e107 (software), ImpressCMS, MODx, DotCMS full disclouser I have listed them for AfD) are claiming notability because they have been given an award from this company. For awards like these does the company and/or the award itself need to be notable to be a reliable source? Am I understanding the polices correctly or totally lost my mind? 16x9 ( talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This all looks... vaguely dodgy to me.. I will investigate further. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In the article on genetically modified organisms, an IP contributor recently added a graduate thesis as a reference. That thesis, towards a MS in Agricultural Economics, can be found here. I got a quick opinion on this from an administrator on IRC, but I'm curious to know what policy rationale there is at WP:RS for whether graduate theses are considered reliable sources. Thanks in advance, Emw2012 ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone please tell me if aintitcool.com could be considered a reliable source, or is it nothing more than a famous blog? Thanks magnius ( talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Three Japanese sources were recently added to the page of List of best-selling music artists to support three different Japanese artists. I have to mention that sources must be very reliable in order for us to keep artists on that page. If publishings are in foreign languages, they must come from prominent news services; in other words, their reliability has to be equivalent to that of CNN or BBC. All three artists are placed within the section of those who have sold records between 50 and 74 million. First source that was added is for Dreams Come True which is to support the act's sales of 50-74 million records. Second source is for Glay which is supposed to indicate a sales-figure of 50-74 million. Third source is for Hikaru Utada which again somewhere within claims that Utada has sold 50-74 million records. I'd appreciate if someone could tell me whether the sources above are reliable and if they are, do they contain such sales figures within as 50-74 million?. Thanks. -- Harout72 ( talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted this section at BLP/N and I have gotten no outside input on the issue, so I figured I'd link from here as well. Any input on how we determine whether a column in a major news source is under the "editorial control" of the source or whether some other sources are reliable enough to quote someone would be appreciated there. Oren0 ( talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I found this article from the World Socialist Web Site, published by the International Committee of the Fourth International in working on the film article Valkyrie. I was not sure about how to assess the reliability of this source since it is not mainstream. Can anyone familiar with this website or similar websites weigh in? Thanks! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is being used as a source for various articles on Chinese history:
Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , 2001, ISBN 7-204-04420-7 WorldCat seems to say it is only available in China, and not only would I question whether or not it is likely to be biased, it seems to me to qualify as unverifiable. Thanks Doug dougweller ( talk) 16:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am rewriting an article about a japanese bombing that happened near my home in WWII. I found a nice article, here at HistoryNet, with helpful information in it, however I am unsure about the source's reliability. They claim to be associated with "Weider History Group, the world’s largest publisher of history magazines". They appear legit, but I would like to be sure. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, -- Noj r ( talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The has been a discussion Talk:Gold as an investment#"Conspiracy" Theories, where reliability of two organizations as sources was questioned:
GATA exists for 10 years; TMS exists for over 20 years, and Austrian School, which TMS belongs to for a much longer time period. GATA and TMS a well known throughout the gold bug community, and information is often located on the investment-related web-sites. Could someone join the above-mentioned discussion or clarify here, what kind of sources could be used to mention contrarian views on Gold as an investment. I ask this, because gold investment related articles undergo something that looks like deliberate clean-up of non-governmental viewpoint, and could be due to current Global economic crisis. Emilfaro ( talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayen 466 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been some discussion between Jayen466 ( talk · contribs) and myself about the usage of primary sources in this article, and we would like some input on whether usage is permissible in these cases. Please see this revision of the page. I have placed a primary sources tag on the page and pointed out the following sources:
I have argued that the Dept. of State reports are issued directly by the government instead of being summarized by a third party. According to WP:PRIMARY, historical documents such as these are considered an insider's view to an event, and are thus primary sources.
In addition, the section "Criticism of Germany's stance" uses sources to state something not explicitly stated in any of the reports (that the US State Dept has repeatedly claimed that Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups). Is this not considered synthesis? ← Spidern → 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
On the basis of the I.R.S. ruling, the State Department formally criticized Germany for discriminating against Scientologists. ... Four months after the exemptions were granted, the State Department released its influential human rights report for 1993, a litany of the countries that abuse their citizens. For the first time, the report contained a paragraph noting that Scientologists had complained of harassment and discrimination in Germany. The matter was mentioned briefly in the 1994 and 1995 reports, too.
I was wondering if the Canadian National Post's blog is a reliable source for a recent event in Calgary. Page in question. Thanks. -- Simpsons contributor ( talk) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see you're so obsessed with me you actually follow my user contributions. Do you have a crush or something? And that the progressives and Nazis marched together is not a “controversial opinion” it's a fact. Ironically the only visual evidence I can find is your photo. If you hadn't released that photo onto the internet there's no way I would have known if the story was completely true. And what do you mean all sides of the discussion? There's a photo showing Nazis and progressives side by side. Nobody but a post-modernist or any other demolition merchant of reality could claim there's “all sides of an issue” here. And the only section of the Herald article that states, as your edit does, that the Nazis weren't welcome was... your quote! If your so concerned about objectivity then remove “despite being asked to leave by the protest organizers” and just state that they marched side by side. You're inserting a point of view by adding what you did and its only source is a personal quote. -- Simpsons contributor ( talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
So, I've looked over the sources and the debates back and forth. Lets see what we can agree on.
The Aryan Guard again received attention on January 10, 2009 when a small number appeared in a 1200-person protest against Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, despite being asked to leave by the protest organizers (cite Calgary Herald), which resulted in editorials with titles such as "United Under the Swastika" appearing in the media.(cite National Post blog) Squidfryerchef ( talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Padillah thinks that Wisegeek.com could be a reliable source, particularly it's about this article. What do you think? -- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 14:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the following source reliable for the Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks article:
User:Vexorg is repeatedly removing it from the article. He seems to want every source to explicitly say Al Qaeda was responsible, though I think the source certainly is a valid to say when the 1992 Yemen attack happened, where, etc. And then, other sources are included for the Al Qaeda responsibility. -- Aude ( talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So, what do you do when there is information found in a reliable source (let's just assume it is one) which does not conflict with other reliable sources (because they just don't contain this piece of information) but which is essentially just an unsubstantiated estimate? In this case, another editor just added to the raccoon article that 15 million raccoons are killed each year by vehicles using this source. I can't wrap my mind around the concept to derivate the numbers for the whole of the United States from 25 school districts in New England. If the numbers were from various school districts all over the United States, it would be okay, I guess. To say something like "According to x..." would not make it better since there is still no substance behind the claim. -- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the web-site "www.britains-smallwars.com/" acceptable in articles? Either the whole site as a regular RS to policy, or this sub-page acceptable reference for the "fact" that 784 soldiers were buried in Palestine between 1945 and 1948 and are memorialized in Staffordshire, and the "fact" there were Danish soldiers amongst them. (This from a list of "61 pages containing 1120 names, including Foreign Nationals and Palestine Police" cited to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission).
The information and source was removed here with a TalkPage contribution here which says, in part: "... not a reliable source. The account itself conceded that the numbers it presents are at odds with official figures and that there's a 'vast discrepancy between this new figure,and that of the MOD'. Second, even of this was sourced to a reliable source, it simply does not say what is claimed. Namely, that these people were killed by Zionist political violence. All it says is a that this the number of British and Danish soldiers currently buried in Israel."
The web-site in question reached its 10th birthday last month, and we have the names of two web-masters and one author. The page here indicates this to be an active project with a great deal of outside contribution, which has added a further 11 pages in the last 3 months. The specific reference to the Danish soldiers buried is cited to Mr G. Webb, Secretary of Palestine Pals Association of xxxxxx Norfolk, England PE30 for whom someone has passed on a message that credits much assistance received and ending "As you can see, the Palestine stone ... is not the work of one man, although many seem to think it is." PR talk 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.cinematographers.nl/default.htm
What are thoughts of using this as a source? Cirt ( talk) 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've used it several times when enhancing articles about cinematographers. Rather than rely on it solely as a definitive source, I looked for at least one other source confirming information it contained before citing it. In every instance I found such confirmation. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
People are removing numerous sources [10] claiming they violate RS. Could some uninvolved editor explain which of the sources that are both MSM and legal experts are or are not permissable? See diff or this version [11] to ascertain if any of the refs there are inadmissable. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are some sopurces Linking UET Prof Levinson [12] Scott Horton (lawyer) [13] [14] Der Spiegel [15] Le Monde Diplomatique [16] All aparrently violating RS. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
First, you may not be aware that ArbCom feels that Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in. Therefore any notable individual (i.e. Kofi Anan, George Bush, John Dean), even when writing for a blog is acceptable. Second, you will find that if one would actually take the effort of actually reading the references every part of the article is verifiable. Third, to call "the writings of reputable legal experts "pop magazine pieces" is at best unfortunate. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the mess, here are the sources claimed to represent the FRINGE and which I am interested to learn whether they are WP:RS Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, Harper's Magazine, John Dean, Marty Lederman. Please could somebody clarify? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Several observation. Calling a sudden influx of new editors on the same time consensus stresses believe. Further, the blatant misrepresentation in this forum is appalingly schocking. Calling Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, The Washington Post, and more LaRouche is at best an uninformed judgement, at worst wilfully misleading potential commenters here. As to accusations of SYNTH and OR, the information this group of editors is trying to eradicate is heavily sourced (almost every sentence) and literally taken from those sources. Nowhere is there a statement that cannot be attributed. If so I am looking forward to specific examples and not name-calling. Merely spouting acronyms in the hope something will stick is not cool. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
is http://glockstore.com/blog_detail/74_Compensated_vs_Ported_Barrels a reliable source? it's a blog, which is usually not a reliable source, but there is an edit war on Glock pistol because one editor claims that since the blog says the same thing as other reliable sources, the blog is therefore reliable. Theserialcomma ( talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Suppose I am going to use a newspaper, let's say, "Somewheristan News", as a source in an article. But the newspaper is actually quoting an expert, say "Dr. John Smith".
Should I, in the article text, write "Somewheristan News states that it is going to rain tomorrow", or "Dr. John Smith states that it is going to rain tomorrow"?
And if this is disputed, can I for instance write, "Daily Somewheristan states that it is not going to rain tomorrow, but other source states that it is indeed going to rain" - the "other source" here, of course, meaning "Dr. John Smith as quoted by Somewheristan News"?
And if I write it like that, and other user edits it to "Daily Somewheristan states that it is not going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith believes the opposite", can I reverse such edit? Ninguém ( talk) 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. It would be the following case:
Source 1: It is not going to rain tomorrow. Source 2: Most experts agree it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith says it is actually going to rain tomorrow.
Sources 1 and 2 aren't experts in meteorology, just news organisations.
This is then quoted in the article like,
"Source 1 says that it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but other source says it is going to rain".
Then if someone tries to change that to "Source 1 says it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith says it is going to rain", the edit is reversed. Ninguém ( talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I was trying to put things in a neutral way; few people do have an axe to grind concerning tomorrow's weather. If I should bring into discussion the actual problem, then in fact it is about demography.
It has to do with the percent of Brazilians that are of German descent, in the article White Brazilians. It is reported that the German consulates in Brazil believe there are 5 million people of German descent in Brazil. Then it is stated that "other source" states 10% of the Brazilian population. The other source is in Portuguese, an online newssource on German-related issues, Deutsche Welle. It reports the following:
Já o jornalista e historiador Dieter Böhnke, de São Paulo, relativiza essa data, afirmando que os primeiros alemães desembarcaram em 1500, entre eles o cozinheiro de Pedro Álvares de Cabral. Segundo ele, mais de 10% da atual população brasileira tem pelo menos um antepassado alemão.
Which means, "But journalist and historian Dieter Böhnke, from São Paulo, relativises this date*, stating that the first Germans arrived in 1500, among them Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook. According to him, more than 10% of the Brazilian population nowadays has at leas one German ancestor."
What I want to do is to put in the text of the article, "historian Dieter Böhnke", instead of "other source". Is it possible? Ninguém ( talk) 14:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I see... should it be then, "according to Deutsche Welle, historian Dieter Böhnke states that..."?
The problem here is that, for all that I know, Deustsche Welle's credibility is higher than Dieter Böhnke's. As the source is in Portuguese, people may be misleaded to believe Deutsche Welle endorses Böhnke's theory, while it is in fact merely reporting the fact that it is Böhnke's theory. Ninguém ( talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Ninguém ( talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the New York Times, in his book Earthforce! Paul Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, "as Ronald Reagan did." (Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels. New York Times, November 10, 1986.) If he has published statements advocating lying, can anything self-published by this individual in future ever be considered reliable? How can we know when he is lying and when he is not? Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As discussed here [17], "entries dealing with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela do not reflect WP:DUE attention to broad, mainstream, reputable and reliable sources according to WP:V. Most of the arguments presented there are spurious and those sources are clearly and blatantly biased for all the reasons long known to most knowledgeable about Venezuela." Further, evidence confirming bias and conflict of interests of certain sources [ [18]]is completely ignored by some editors that otherwise apply, almost immediately, Wiki principles to sources that clash with their POV. Can independent editors please look into this matter? Alekboyd ( talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this particular page at TVSquad.com a blog-type page, or is Ryan j Budke some type of professional TV critic? The bio to which one is directed when clicking on his name does not indicate the latter. What say you? Nightscream ( talk) 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen at Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing concerning the reliability of the website [19], specifically regarding the following paragraph:
While Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat later did condemn the act, documents seized by the IDF during Operation Defensive Shield revealed that the Palestinian Ministry of Social Affairs granted a sum of $2,000 to the father of the bomber about two weeks later. [4]
The website's self-description can be found here. Discussion is welcome; my personal position is that it looks like a professional organization with paid staff members and editorial oversight, although we necessarily have to control for bias in something as fraught as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ray ( talk) 15:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some outside (not the usual IP crowd) feedback on whether terrorism-info.org.il is a reliable source or not? It is an issue that pops up now and then and is the centre of contention in two discussions here and here.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:39
Comment from an involved editor This is more than a regular POV source (the kind we use and have to use constantly). It is effectively a propaganda operation. It calls itself "an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot, north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich". We have to ask ourselves whether we'd use a web-site dedicated to Muslim martyrs, hosted by retired Palestinian militants or Iranians.
The site hosts "A display of Palestinian documents and materials related to terrorism, captured by the Israel Defense Forces in the Palestinian Authority-administered territories. The display includes weapons, posters, documents and various types of equipment" leaving the door wide open for outright fabrication. Any form of cult document and any form of criminal activity can be laid at the door of the PA in this fashion - and this despite the fact they have very little control with every security asset of theirs has been repeatedly flattened and their staff at every level subject to assassination, often at random. (PA areas are also full of collaborators, again making any kind of determination of what's really happened virtually impossible).
This site is not irredeemable, even handing modest encouragement back to the "peace lobby" "Since the end of Operation Cast Lead, the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip have violated the ceasefire 12 times. In our assessment, Hamas wants quiet in the Gaza Strip but so far does not deter the other organizations" but its reliability for anything "surprising" can only be slim. A report on these PA documents from internationals is the minimum we should expect before refering to them.
PR
talk 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am preparing Premiere (The O.C.) for FAC, and have been advised (by Ealdgyth) to get feedback here of whether http://www.seeing-stars.com/oc/ is reliable.
I would say that it is reliable as a self-published source. It is written by Gary Wayne, someone who has become an expert in that field, and who's site has gained coverage in relaible third party publications. These include the Washington Post, Los Angeles Daily News, and Los Angeles Times. Additionally, an article in Chino's Daily Bulletin specifically mentions that The O.C. part of the site "backs up its assertions with photographic comparisons." There is also an area on the site in question that details its press reviews. I have put forward a case for why I feel it is a reliable source, and would like input from the community to determine whether it can be deemed reliable or not. Many thanks in advance for all comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for you comment, does anyone else agree/disagree. I would like to try and build some form of consensus, so I would like as much input here as possible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Center for Defense Information a reliable source? I have seen many cases where it seems quite biased, especially when it comes to Russia related themes. If you take a look at [20], you'll notice that almost everything they say about Russia is negative. At the very least I think they certainly have a strong agenda. Offliner ( talk) 12:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Pauley Perrette there's disagreement over IMDb used as a reliable source. Feedback there, and clarification at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples please. Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09 t00:58z
I would like some opinions as to the reliability of sources for the biographical article on Jack Warner. I don't know if I should list them here. I am concerned in particular with the "Early Years" section. They are published sources in book form, but I contend that they aren't reliable enough to be used, and in some instances paraphrased as fact, for encyclopedic content. In my opinion they are in the "creative writing" mode, designed to be a good read, but there is no evidence that there was any fact-checking involved. They disagree with each other on some points and seem very much prone to repeating heresay. Thanks! 69.86.119.87 ( talk) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No, that isn't a published source in book form and is quite the opposite of what I'm talking about. One of the books I refer to above is Cass Sperling, Cork Millner, Jack Warner, "Hollywood be thy Name, the Warner Brothers Story" (University Press of Kentucky:1998), which can be read, in part, at google.com. Particularly, pages 17-22 covering some of the early period of Benjamin Warner and his family. Others are Bob Thomas, "Clown Prince of Hollywood: The Antic Life and Times of Jack L. Warner," (McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York:1990) and Michael Freedland, "The Warner Brothers" (Harrap:1983). Declair ( talk) 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a difference of opinion with an editor. Is this organization and it's archives, specifically [22] (under Medical Literature Review), a sufficiently reliable source to support the wording, "Bell served as a board member of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME."? Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Can they be used as sources?
For instance,
(which, besides being interactive, is also in Portuguese) - can it be used as a source for religion in Brazil?
Thanks in advance, Ninguém ( talk) 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the information is in the IBGE database. It's official government information. Users can only retrieve information, mounting their own tables. The problem would be, using it as a source would probably imply explaining how to retrieve information... or not? People who don't know Portuguese probably will have trouble accessing it, I imagine. Ninguém ( talk) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, please could you tell me if journalist's blogs can be considered as a reliable source? This concerns a controversial matter regarding the biography of a living person; a newspaper sensationally (and inaccurately) reported a detail of the controversy which, while more 'readable' and 'exciting' I feel unfairly blows the whole thing out of proportion. I would like to get it changed/toned down on Wikipedia and have found a blog by a journalist which presents a far more fair and balanced portrayal of what actually happened. I'm told I need evidence from a reliable source in order to sanction this - would the journalist's blog count? Thanks in advance for any help or light you can shed on this. Cheers guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinxCariad ( talk • contribs)
I'd like to raise the status of IsraelInsider as a reliable source. It has previously been the subject of discussions on Wikipedia about its reliability (see [26]), as it's linked from numerous articles (see [27]). However, there are a number of things that make me doubt its reliability. It's run by a Tel Aviv web design company called Koret Communications rather than any mainstream media organisations. It has the characteristics of a self-published source: its founder, Reuven Koret, is the website's owner, publisher, editor and apparently the principal if not the sole author of its news stories. According to him it's a "social blogzine, combining the characteristics of a newsmagazine, a web journal, and a social network. The journal aims to present an insider perspective on the Jewish State for the outside world. Registered members can create profiles, post comments or blog entries, or communicate with each other." [28] Looking at some of the content, I think we would definitely have to consider it a questionable source for its focus on fringe and extremist viewpoints - they seem to have a thing about Barack Obama in particular (" Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?"). I'd be interested to know what others think about this. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Outside view: Nothing about the website's organization and (often fringy) original content indicates that it would qualify as a reliable source on wikipedia, especially since the posted stories seem to confound news, analysis and commentary. Even a biased source can be cited on wikipedia (with proper attribution) if it is a noteworthy/prominent voice, but I haven't found any evidence (such as other RS'es quoting it) that this is true for the Isrealinsider either. Abecedare ( talk) 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Some other sources for the use of "Hezbollywood": Jewish journal, National Post [38] The g-hits for "Hezbollywood" are 13,800. Obviously, since it is a new and "informal" name, it will not be written in most RS newspapers as reporting language. However, there is considerable evidence that it is now a commonly-used term to describe this phenomenon. The fact that the World Socialist Web site and the Iranian site are using it demonstrates that it is in common parlance. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Uninvolved note: I got to this discussion by following a link sent via random PM on IRC from Jaakobou. Apparently he's been randomly canvassing people in the main en-wiki channel, sending a link to "look at his argument here". I don't really care and I'm not gonna do anything, but I figured it might be relevant to your interests. Bullzeye contribs 08:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Not RS - the first article I picked up from this "newsmagazine" was this one from 2004, subject "The ADL and Never Again". It includes statements such as "Of course, anyone who will look at the facts honestly will find that Rabbi Kahane was not a racist but rather telling the painful truth about Israel's enemies as he was correct in his observations concerning the PLO and the Palestinians." Need I go on, or will the details at Meir Kahane suffice? PR talk 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Outside view: Seems a clear fail of our reliable sources policies and should not be used as a source. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this source meet Wikiepdia's WP:RS criteria? It is published by a mainstream publisher (Random House), and co-authored by two academics, one is the Taube Research Fellow in American History at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author of nine other history books. The other is on the faculty of the Fromm Institute at the University of San Francisco, and is described as "an author, teacher, archivist, political consultant, and talk show host". It seems to me this meets all the requirements set out by WP:RS, but some editors are objecting to its use, even when the claims made in it are attributed to its authors and not stated as fact, on the grounds that it is "cruft", or that the authors are "quacks". NoCal100 ( talk) 05:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting case! The pedigree of the book (publishers, academic authors) looks impressive enough at first glance for one to say that this is a reliable source for wikipedia. However, as far as I can see, informed reviews of the book have been uniformly negative and have, in particular, criticized it for factual inaccuracies. That means we have multiple real-world reliable sources saying that this book is unreliable, and I don't think WP:RSN can overrule that. So, unless new evidence is brought to light, I would have to agree with ChrisO and Nishidani, that this book does not pass the WP:RS-test. Abecedare ( talk) 21:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we are heading down a slippery slope here, by suggesting that books that received negative reviews fail to meet WP:RS. The article Icon of Evil was rewritten by ChrisO today. 30 minutes after he finished his rewrite, he is posting here, making his case based on that rewrite. I have many issues with that rewrite, which appears to have cherry picked only the most negative reviews, in order to claim that 'Reviews for the book were generally poor'. A few examples:
My main point is not directly related to Icon of Evil, which might very well be a poor source for extraordinary claims about Husseini, but with the methodology proposed here, of disqualifying a book because it received some very negative reviews. Take, as an example The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. This book was torn to shreds by some reviewers. David Pryce-Jones in Literary Review pronounces "As history, the book is worthless." Seth J. Frantzman in Middle East Quarterly says of several of its passages that they are "a cynical exercise in manipulating evidence to fit an implausible thesis.", and that "As a work of scholarship, Pappé's book falls short, and it does so in a particularly damning way. He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evidence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring other sources entirely." Mordechai Bar-On was highly critical of the book, and called Pappe “a propagandist, not a historian.” So? Will we now remove it as re frence from the dozen or so articles it is used in? I think not. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Haj Amin el-Husseini has been the Invisible Man of modern Middle East history: Academic courses across Britain, the United States, the European Union and even in Israel over the past 60 years have failed to do more than mention him.
The mufti had been jailed by the British for 15 years only a few months before for inciting a bloody pogrom against Jewish inhabitants of the Old City of Jerusalem only the year before in 1920.
I'm just popping in here to deconstruct some apparent complete misunderstanding of No original research. This policy prohibits what content may be placed on a Wikipedia article. It prevents editors from adding their personal findings or interpretations (also prohibited by NPOV anyway). So I have to very emphatically say that WP:OR does not restrict editorial decisions about which sources are reliable or appropriate for an article. You'll notice that the guideline explicitly affects only articles and only the content therein. Behind the scenes original research to filter out bad sources is not and never has been prohibited. So if an editor claims to have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in a questinable source, it is best for Wikipedia to actually consider it instead of digging one's head into the ground. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
For extraordinary claims, I'd say it would need to be cited as a source of opinion, not fact, e.g. "In their book Icon of Evil, authors David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann claimed that..." Of course, this would leave the question of whether the extraordinary claim was notable enough for inclusion in the article in the first place. If this book were the only source of the claim, it would be hard to justify its inclusion in an article. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
'Oh, and yes, there are some factual errors in the book. Show me a book of history that has none. Canadian Monkey
Does this source meet Wikiepdia's WP:RS criteria?
Comment. One problem with attributing the claim to the author: apparently this book (icon of evil) got bad reviews from other scholars. So, if we are to attribute the claim to the book, we need to make it very clear to the reader that this book got bad reviews and criticisms. i.e: (icon of evil) claims so and so, however the book got was heavily criticized. Which I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic. Imad marie ( talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:ASF starts out with:'Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." The information is a rumour, evidently concocted to smear three people almost a century ago, and not a fact. Of all modern sources, fully familiar with the 'facts', none I know of mentions it. The only recent book on the mufti to mention it is written by people with no formal qualifications in Middle Eastern history. Hence the dominant issues are WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, neither of which would seem to back the inclusion of this source on the page.
Dalin, Icon of Evil is exactly on the same level as Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. The reasons are that these authors have political agendas (they don't hide this) and come with "controversed" analysis or conclusions. I would personnaly not use them to report facts but try to find better ones, such as Zvi Elpeleg and Philip Mattar for what concerns the Mufti and as Benny Morris or Nur Masalha for what concerns the 1948 Exodus.
Nevertheless, wikipedia offers us no real tool or rule to start selecting which academic source would be right and which one would not.
As a consequence, I would suggest :
I have a question : it was asked several time if this book was a wp:rs source. But a wp:rs source for what fact ? If it is about general relativity, they are not ! What would you like to source with this ? Ceedjee ( talk) 16:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My two cents is that for the claim of homosexuality, redflag would be the appropriate policy, since this is a "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Until and unless it is covered by mainstream sources, it should be left out of the article. However, for other issues the book has not got such "bad" reviews. Tom Segev doesn't like it for political reasons. Most of the reviews acknowledge that it is well researched but feel it is overly political and biased. This is not uncommon for a work documenting fairly contemporary history. Thus I say, ok for historical points, not for exceptional claims that they are the first and only to document, such as homosexuality. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what you think about TorrentFreak (it has an article at TorrentFreak). It is a self-published blog dedicated to online filesharing, and gives a strong focus on reporting information regarding illegal online activity, like transferring movies online and such. The website is definitely one of the most, if not the most, popular websites dedicated to illegal online filesharing, but because of its nature, I don't think it can really ever be considered a "professional" website—but the website's writers are certainly "experts" in their field. There are hundreds of reliable sources that reference the website; about 156 on Google News, and a few on Google Books. " Scene stealer: The aXXo files" from The Independent is a particularly good article that mentions the website several times.
The site doesn't share copyright material, just discuss it. In particular, they have a lot of interviews with people in the industry—not just people who trade software online, but also with people who work for government agencies and organizations like the MPAA and RIAA who are charged with preventing piracy, so those can be very useful. A lot of the material is similar to The Indendent article I linked above. Also, I don't plan to include it in just any article; I'd like to use it in articles such as aXXo and The Pirate Bay, both which are about software piracy, so TorrentFreak is very relevant in these cases. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk) 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like a second opinion on this source. I believe that in context it passes reliability criteria, but if it does not I can find other sources, but I would really prefer not to. The source in question is this book on Google Books which is a book published by "Digital Scanning, Inc" and appears to be a small-town print-on-demand type operation. (This is a book on local history, so there may not be much of a market for it.) It's available on Amazon, though I know that doesn't mean much.
My feeling is that the authority of the author here trumps the potential lack of authority in the publisher and that this source is "reliable". Can I please have a second or third opinion? The article this refers to is Wessagusset Colony. JRP ( talk) 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help with the edit warring at MEMRI? The issue is whether Juan Cole's blog is acceptable under WP:SELFPUB for purposes of commenting om MEMRI. There is consensus that Cole's commentary is relevant to issues raised in the entry. WP:SELFPUB says:
and
Cole certainly qualifies under [A]. He's an established expert on the Middle East. He's an academic with many scholarly publications, he's published many articles in major newspapers and magazines such as the New York Times, he's frequently quoted in major news sources, and he appears on major radio and TV programs in the English-speaking and Arabic-speaking world.
The question is whether Cole is disqualified under [B]. Some editors read [B] as saying that Cole's blog "can't be used here". Others read the guideline provision that blogs "may sometimes be cited" as applying to Cole's blog.
The editors who oppose Cole read [B] as saying that, instead of quoting Cole's blog, we must find a reliable source that cites Cole. However, this subject, criticism of the Arab media, is specialized and most of the people who critique MEMRI are in Cole's position. So the alternative reading of [B] is that non-self-published sources are preferable but if they don't exist self-published sources are acceptable.
Does SELFPUB allow Cole's blog? Does it forbid Cole's blog? How do we decide? Nbauman ( talk) 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
cole's criticism, which is included in the article, comprises one sentence/two lines. this "section" is clearly attributable to him. his arguments/observations were not existent there before, therefore it's not a repetition.-- Severino ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
cole doesn't really make the same point as hooper and lalami. of course it too centers on selectivity - thats the title of the section. but his observation is not mirrored in the other statements.-- Severino ( talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hooper and Lalami quotes are more concise and clear, and found in reliable sources. The Cole quote is overly wordy, and not found in a reliable source. I think the issue is pretty much settled. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to know if I can use the following webpage in wikipedia dedicated to a musical genre.I know websites are to be used with caution in general. But I'd like to know if I can quote this page: [42] in specifying this is a view from a website like this:
The website "A Study of Gothic subculture" describes it as being "most characterized by soprano female vocals combined with bass, lead guitar, and drums which creates a surreal, angelic or otherworldly effect e.g...."
Also I have to specify this is not the only source I use, we also use published sources for this article. As I said I'm aware online sources have to be used with caution, but I just like to know if I can use it in specifying this is a view of this site.
Thanks in advance Fred D.Hunter ( talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's the issue in a nutshell:
The March/April 2008 issue of NY Arts had an article by Angela Holm. Her byline for the article said:
Angela Holm is a San Francisco-based freelance writer and the Director of Productions at Big Sound, Inc., where she is currently working on the definitive restoration of the 1929 silent film, Pandora’s Box.
The initial version of Ferguson's article said (May 2008):
Ferguson formed Big Sound in 2006 as a means of realizing his ambitions to preserve and present classic silent films in a live setting. ... The German classic Pandora's Box — based on the restoration of the original film funded by Hugh M. Hefner — which starred the American actress and Jazz Age icon, Louise Brooks is the first of Big Sound's restoration efforts. Spearheaded by Ferguson and Big Sound's Vice President of Production Angela Holm, the project also enlisted The George Eastman House, a preeminent leader in film restoration, as its archival sponsor.
My thought: okay, Holm worked for Big Sound (based on her byline). Per the old version of the article, not only did she work for BS, but Ferguson started BS, and they worked together. Easy answer: it's obvious COI, and we can't use her piece as a source.
At a later point, research made it clear that there are no sources for that section at all—not that he founded BS, or even that it ever existed. Consequently, that section got cut. That's fine by me.
However, now an editor (one with an admitted conflict of interest) is claiming that this is trying to have it both ways: WP must either allow something to be in the article with no sourcing (the existence of BS) or WP must allow Holm's biased article to be used as a source (since our article no longer says she works for him).
My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true. I think it's a DUCK, and we can't use her piece as a source.
Your thoughts? Dori ( Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: DoriSmith is trying to cloud the RS discussion by again reintroducing as evidence something that she, herself, previously dismissed as unreliable due to lack of verification. Now she is straining to recycle the original David Ferguson (impresario) article to illustrate a COI between Angela Holm and the article's subject, David Ferguson.
To quote DoriSmith from above: "My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true."
Is this instinctive knowledge that Dori refers to corroborated by any verifiable third party source?? Funny...but I bet if another user tried that 'plenty of things...but we know to true' nonsense to substantiate or argue for the inclusion of a passage of text in an article, Dori would step in and challenge immediately and be most vociferous in her objection. For example, in addressing user 'Damesmartypants' (who has stocked Ferguson's Discussion page with potentially libelous commentary), DoriSmith wrote:
Could we please stop all talk about "go contact so-and-so" or "it's generally known by insiders" or similar language? If you want to do that kind of writing, go start a blog. That's not what WP is about. If you have any questions, read the above quotation again, and follow the links. How about we instead start discussing when would be a good cutoff for deleting all the stuff for which no one can find a cite? Or alternately, we could start editing the workpage I set up a few weeks ago. Right now, this article is still a disaster area. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that argument for verifiable sourcing seems to matter little. It was for those very reasons of improper sourcing that the Big Sound passage found in the original article was removed. Now DoriSmith wants to turn around and now use it as a fall-back position to defend what is an unfounded COI allegation. This hypocritical gesture should be confronted and the NY Arts article written by Angela Holm should be allowed to substantiate text for the David Ferguson (impresario) article.
Thank you for reviewing
DrJamesX ( talk) 04:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
Is this website acceptable for use as a reliable source? It seems like anyone could post there. The article is for BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and the link [44] is a legal document. I'm concerned it's being used as a primary source instead of what newsmedia are reporting in the high-profile case. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Authentication. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Question. How is sfgate publishing it make it authentic? Maybe they got it from Wikipedia?
Question. Is not this a primary source. Are no secondary sources available?(unsigned)
Yes -- documents are intrinsically "primary sources" about which reams of electronic paper have been used on the appropriate noticeboards. In practice, it means that you should only use the precise wording in the document, and avoid making any conjectures whatever otherwise. And if conjecture is needed, then you absolutely need a different source. IMHO. Collect ( talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
In this case there are hundreds of reliable sources. Why are we trying to use any primary sources? Perhaps Wikipedia should wait until some reliable secondary sources report the material instead?
If it is a primary source which is POV slanted it would seem better to leave it off. If it must be included then it should be matched u with corresponding POV primary sources representing the other legal side of the argument. It would probably be best to leave them both off and use reliable secondary sources instead. This case is wisely covered so why not a neutral summary in lieu of two POV statements from primary sources?
There remains doubt if this is an authentic document even though a media source has also posted a copy. And it remains a primary source with an obvious bias. This is cited to at least five statement in the article. If reliable sources cover those statements then this is not needed. If they don't cover those statements then maybe the statements should be left out. There is eagerness to use faulty sourcing when we should instead focus on neutral writing.
It has been put in again [45] and even expanded when no consensus for the use has materialized. Maybe we should use secondary sources here instead of primary sources when there are so many available. This case is in the headlines regularly so there is little need for Wikipedia to quote court documents. This seem to go against neutrality. Also the talkpage discussion was favoring removing all the speculation and strip down the POV material.
Sorry I followed the article talk page here, the discussion on the talk page favored leaving POV material out so I wondered why it was re-added. The discussion there leans towards bullying as far as I can tell so I do not wish to be a part of that. (~)
This book review:
Used in article:
Issue:
[1] Web link is supposedly of his review published in Israel Horizons, but it seems to have been edited extensively. Postscripts, addendums - what else was changed?
[2] No way of telling whether or not this publication is widespread or respected enough to be considered reliable. The publisher
Meretz does not give any circulation information, which sets off alarm bells for me. In my experience, any publication that doesn't trumpet its circulation numbers is usually very limited. Reputation is part of
WP:RS - with few publications referring to the magazine (that I can find), should it really qualify, as is required by
WP:RS, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?
[3] Amateurish writing style - for example, "I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find...". No identified expert referred to? His nephew? I couldn't get away with using my mommy as a reference back in grade 5. Should one really consider such a poorly written article to be
WP:RS? Doesn't the amateurish writing indicate that it's not up to quality for use as a reliable source?
[4] The article completely misrepresents the facts - he states, "Gore Vidal tells us that an (unnamed) "American Zionist" brought Harry Truman two million dollars", where the actual introduction has it as a humorous anecdote - or in his words, "a funny story". Yes, yes - no original research. But the misrepresentation of facts seems to be enough grounds for it to bring into question it's applicability for use as a
WP:RS, aside from use as a source of colorful and inflammatory language to use to discredit Israel Shahak, hopefully misleading any reader who doesn't take the time to check the actual material being referred to.
In a nutshell, my opinion is that it's an incredibly poor
WP:RS, and really doesn't deserve mention in a Wikipedia article. More professional, informed sources are surely available; written by people who actually take their time to check with experts and present arguments which don't completely misrepresent the facts.
Or is it entirely valid to use any old published material, so long as it adheres to the bare minimum of WP:RS? GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
A polemicist prone to personal smears and exaggerations, not RS The clip in use at the article
Israel Shahak is this one: "Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident." a review in 1994. I don't expect to see writing like this in an encyclopaedia, not even if the views of Werner Cohn were notable and Shahak was a fringe politician or notorious propagandist, publishing for political effect. (and neither is the case).
According to another
notorious polemicist, Werner Cohn goes to great effort to link Noam Chomsky to the views of a Holocaust Denier for whom Chomsky once signed a petition. This is "guilt by association", a classic McCarthyism, and Cohn dabbles in it himself, eg here on
Obama.
I think using this source (and the clip in question) raises serious questions about the balance of the whole article. Werner Cohn is most certainly not an RS, with "fact-checking" and an "editorial board" as required by policy and should not be used for anything factual or substantive in any article.
(I should add that I'm aware of the Shahak article and think it's atrocious, but I'm too frightened to have tried to edit it, ever).
PR
talk 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am starting a discussion to bring up the reliability of the following sources.
"STEVE ANDERSONs Weekly DVD Reviews". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Slasherpool Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Horror Talk Reviews". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Slasherpool Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"4outof10 Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
Each of these sources was added by the user Magnius in the article The Asylum. The Asylum is known for producing low-budget films capitalizing on the releases of major Hollywood studios. These releases are sometimes known as "mockbusters". The article for the studio contains a section listing mockbusters and the original studio releases. I had asked editors not to add titles for which reliable sources (such as newspapers, books and NPR) which refer to each title as a "mockbuster" could not be provided. When I questioned Magnius about these sources, he did not respond in any way. He simply blanked his talk page without responding in either his editing description or on my own talk page. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
I looked at a few of the sources. They do not appear reliable. That's all we can really do here. There's probably some other page that can help. Not sure which one, though. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Another editor and I have a question about whether an established club can be used as a reference on standards in a hobby. Specifically, whether the websites of the National Fancy Rat Society and American Fancy Rat and Mouse Assoc. can be used for claims about standards in coat colors, types, etc. for pet rats. My argument is that this is not unlike sourcing the American Kennel Club, or other such long-standing club when discussing standards, and it provides the most current and accessible reference. PSWG1920 would prefer to use books on pet rat care as they would be a more secondary source. Please respond at Talk:Fancy rat. Thanks! - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Specifically this one of Segovia: http://www.naxos.com/reviews/reviews.asp?reviewdate=2/0-0/2008&rvwtyp=2008/2&reviewtype=david#8.111092
Thanks, -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to use this as a source/external link for Bengoshi no Kuzu. Japanese television drama, Miho Kanno, Naohito Fujiki, Sora Aoi, just to name a few, all cite jdorama.com as reference or external link. Is the information reliable? Extremepro ( talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Could some expert take a look at Medpedia - currently preview as not launched yet & see whether it would be considered relaible because of the contributors - even though its a wiki?— Rod talk 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
hello
Anybody there to enlighten us about the use of internet-published encyclopedia as sources for debated points? We have a certain debate of using figures for ethnic groups and percentages from the following sources (there are no official figures on this subject):
My question: is any of these sources considered a reliable source? If some of these are not considered reliable, should they be deleted speedily or could they be kept as to give an overview of what figures are given around on internet?
Thanks for any answer-- Ilyacadiz ( talk) 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in third opinions. At present, myself and another editor are in disagreement whether a passage from the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion in the article. This is the in dispute. This discussion is ongoing on the talk page Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Saul_Cornell_paid_mouthpiece_of_the_Joyce_Foundation_-_POV_bias_issue and I would welcome some third opinions in the discussion there. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Canadian Who's Who a reliable source for a WP biography about an individual listed there? In addition to other sources? Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Is JKRowling.com a reliable source to show that a fansite is notable? [54] -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So, can it be used as one of the reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria? -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009
There is an ongoing edit war in the Mariah Carey discography article regarding figures and sources for album sales. (The problem is much more widespread, but this is as good example as any.) The problem is that centrally located, publicly accessible information regarding world-wide album sales figures is not generally available (that I know of), and press releases and news stories from primary and secondary sources are spotty and often dated. Tertiary sources (such as fan sites) may provide more up-to-date information, but the reliability and verifiability of the information has been questioned. Several editors disagree as to what figures and sources should be used.
I consider myself a passer-by who took an interest in trying to resolve some of these sourcing issues. However, I am not familiar enough with the industry nor am I sufficiently knowledgeable in Wikipedia reliable source guidelines to know what the best solution would be. So I am inviting any of you who read this to join this discussion to express your views. More specifically, I also would like to solicit opinions on the use of " http://www.mariahdaily.com/infozone/charts/albums/worldwide/index.shtml" and " http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=4687" as sources. Thank you. -- Tcncv ( talk) 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I may be breaking protocol, but I'm moving this to the end in another attempt to get some attention. Are there any RS regulars here here who could evaluate and comment on the sourcing problems in the Mariah Carey discography article?. I'm ready to punt and move on otherwise. Thank you. -- Tcncv ( talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Try billboard.com, they are the industry leader.(~)
What do people think of this? I ran across it here and when I saw the citation I was like "how on earth do I know for sure that this is the celebrity, and not someone with the same name?" I then did a link search and saw that this site is currently used over 500 on wikipedia. And suppose that a public figure, like a celebrity, does not want to have their birthday published, and they have successfully made sure that the birthdate has been kept out of the media, is it appropriate for wikipedia to dig up county records and publish the birthday for the first time? Anyway, what do others think about this site in general, and this case specifically?- Andrew c [talk] 03:29, 12 February 2009 (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 25 | Archive 26 | Archive 27 | Archive 28 | Archive 29 | Archive 30 | → | Archive 35 |
Living Waters Publications (a close associate of The Way of the Master, a US ministry) puts out this press release. Inspire, a small and obscure UK religious magazine (semi-free, with 'subscription' apparently only available directly from the publisher [1]) puts a brief précis of this press release on their website here (with not indication that it is published in their hardcopy magazine). Is this a reliable source? I believe that it blatantly is not, but User:American Eagle insists strenuously (based upon no apparent reason than his only personal opinion/belief) that it is. Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:07, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
It is also an inaccurate précis, in that it states that "US based Living Waters Publications has sold more than 20 million Million Dollar Bills gospel tracts" (which is included in the article) when the PR only stated "More than 20 million million dollar bills have been given away". Hrafn Talk Stalk( P) 07:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I've nominated Franklin Knight Lane for FA, and I'm considering using this reference for biographical information about Lane (I am actually using it at present for info on the fund which is in Lane's name at Cal, which is permissible under WP:SELFPUB). Here is the bio of the guy, Levin, who wrote the profile on Lane. Reason I'd really like to mine this article for bio info on Lane is that people have expressed concern during the FAC about my use of a biographical outline which is in a volume of letters written by Lane, published after his death. Here is the link to the FAC if anyone is interested.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 18:48, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Warren is a prominent religious figure in the US. Obama chose Warren to give the invocation at his inauguration ceremony. This created controversy. Some editors claim that the invocation controversy is not notable. And they claim that the current wording of the article accurately explains that controversy. Current wording is simply this: "The decision angered pro-choice and LGBT advocates and led to criticism of both Obama and Warren.[15]" without any explanation as to why. They are opposing addition of more information eventhough it has many reliable sources. Please comment in: Talk:Rick_Warren#Warren.2C_invocation.2C_views_on_homosexuality Phoenix of9 ( talk) 00:51, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This article has been through a slow-moving edit war over the last few months, between SPAs who cannot write anything positive about Ferguson and SPAs who cannot write anything negative about him. I've been trying to help out, but the number of sources currently in the article that I think are bunk has gotten ridiculous (and no one's paying attention to my talk page requests for better sourcing, anyway). Could an uninvolved party come in and take a look? Thanks. Dori ( Talk • Contribs) 02:29, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
There is user-written content here on the BBC site; doesn't appear to be a reliable source on BBC. Opinions? -- btphelps ( talk) ( contribs) 01:42, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
I think that this website is not a RS as it is a partisan/sectarian promotional thinktank. YellowMonkey ( click here to vote for world cycling's #1 model!) 04:23, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Packt, a reliable sources and more specifically their awards competition for open source content management systems. A few CMS articles ( e107 (software), ImpressCMS, MODx, DotCMS full disclouser I have listed them for AfD) are claiming notability because they have been given an award from this company. For awards like these does the company and/or the award itself need to be notable to be a reliable source? Am I understanding the polices correctly or totally lost my mind? 16x9 ( talk) 21:44, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
This all looks... vaguely dodgy to me.. I will investigate further. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 22:15, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
In the article on genetically modified organisms, an IP contributor recently added a graduate thesis as a reference. That thesis, towards a MS in Agricultural Economics, can be found here. I got a quick opinion on this from an administrator on IRC, but I'm curious to know what policy rationale there is at WP:RS for whether graduate theses are considered reliable sources. Thanks in advance, Emw2012 ( talk) 19:03, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone please tell me if aintitcool.com could be considered a reliable source, or is it nothing more than a famous blog? Thanks magnius ( talk) 13:38, 2 February 2009 (UTC)
Three Japanese sources were recently added to the page of List of best-selling music artists to support three different Japanese artists. I have to mention that sources must be very reliable in order for us to keep artists on that page. If publishings are in foreign languages, they must come from prominent news services; in other words, their reliability has to be equivalent to that of CNN or BBC. All three artists are placed within the section of those who have sold records between 50 and 74 million. First source that was added is for Dreams Come True which is to support the act's sales of 50-74 million records. Second source is for Glay which is supposed to indicate a sales-figure of 50-74 million. Third source is for Hikaru Utada which again somewhere within claims that Utada has sold 50-74 million records. I'd appreciate if someone could tell me whether the sources above are reliable and if they are, do they contain such sales figures within as 50-74 million?. Thanks. -- Harout72 ( talk) 01:10, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
I posted this section at BLP/N and I have gotten no outside input on the issue, so I figured I'd link from here as well. Any input on how we determine whether a column in a major news source is under the "editorial control" of the source or whether some other sources are reliable enough to quote someone would be appreciated there. Oren0 ( talk) 03:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I found this article from the World Socialist Web Site, published by the International Committee of the Fourth International in working on the film article Valkyrie. I was not sure about how to assess the reliability of this source since it is not mainstream. Can anyone familiar with this website or similar websites weigh in? Thanks! — Erik ( talk • contrib) 17:01, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
This is being used as a source for various articles on Chinese history:
Li Bo, Zheng Yin, "5000 years of Chinese history", Inner Mongolian People's publishing corp , 2001, ISBN 7-204-04420-7 WorldCat seems to say it is only available in China, and not only would I question whether or not it is likely to be biased, it seems to me to qualify as unverifiable. Thanks Doug dougweller ( talk) 16:10, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi, I am rewriting an article about a japanese bombing that happened near my home in WWII. I found a nice article, here at HistoryNet, with helpful information in it, however I am unsure about the source's reliability. They claim to be associated with "Weider History Group, the world’s largest publisher of history magazines". They appear legit, but I would like to be sure. Any help is appreciated. Thanks, -- Noj r ( talk) 17:23, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
The has been a discussion Talk:Gold as an investment#"Conspiracy" Theories, where reliability of two organizations as sources was questioned:
GATA exists for 10 years; TMS exists for over 20 years, and Austrian School, which TMS belongs to for a much longer time period. GATA and TMS a well known throughout the gold bug community, and information is often located on the investment-related web-sites. Could someone join the above-mentioned discussion or clarify here, what kind of sources could be used to mention contrarian views on Gold as an investment. I ask this, because gold investment related articles undergo something that looks like deliberate clean-up of non-governmental viewpoint, and could be due to current Global economic crisis. Emilfaro ( talk) 05:20, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Jayen 466 09:02, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
There has been some discussion between Jayen466 ( talk · contribs) and myself about the usage of primary sources in this article, and we would like some input on whether usage is permissible in these cases. Please see this revision of the page. I have placed a primary sources tag on the page and pointed out the following sources:
I have argued that the Dept. of State reports are issued directly by the government instead of being summarized by a third party. According to WP:PRIMARY, historical documents such as these are considered an insider's view to an event, and are thus primary sources.
In addition, the section "Criticism of Germany's stance" uses sources to state something not explicitly stated in any of the reports (that the US State Dept has repeatedly claimed that Germany's actions constitute government and societal discrimination against minority religious groups). Is this not considered synthesis? ← Spidern → 22:07, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
On the basis of the I.R.S. ruling, the State Department formally criticized Germany for discriminating against Scientologists. ... Four months after the exemptions were granted, the State Department released its influential human rights report for 1993, a litany of the countries that abuse their citizens. For the first time, the report contained a paragraph noting that Scientologists had complained of harassment and discrimination in Germany. The matter was mentioned briefly in the 1994 and 1995 reports, too.
I was wondering if the Canadian National Post's blog is a reliable source for a recent event in Calgary. Page in question. Thanks. -- Simpsons contributor ( talk) 21:44, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Glad to see you're so obsessed with me you actually follow my user contributions. Do you have a crush or something? And that the progressives and Nazis marched together is not a “controversial opinion” it's a fact. Ironically the only visual evidence I can find is your photo. If you hadn't released that photo onto the internet there's no way I would have known if the story was completely true. And what do you mean all sides of the discussion? There's a photo showing Nazis and progressives side by side. Nobody but a post-modernist or any other demolition merchant of reality could claim there's “all sides of an issue” here. And the only section of the Herald article that states, as your edit does, that the Nazis weren't welcome was... your quote! If your so concerned about objectivity then remove “despite being asked to leave by the protest organizers” and just state that they marched side by side. You're inserting a point of view by adding what you did and its only source is a personal quote. -- Simpsons contributor ( talk) 22:03, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
So, I've looked over the sources and the debates back and forth. Lets see what we can agree on.
The Aryan Guard again received attention on January 10, 2009 when a small number appeared in a 1200-person protest against Israel's actions in the Gaza Strip, despite being asked to leave by the protest organizers (cite Calgary Herald), which resulted in editorials with titles such as "United Under the Swastika" appearing in the media.(cite National Post blog) Squidfryerchef ( talk) 16:44, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
User:Padillah thinks that Wisegeek.com could be a reliable source, particularly it's about this article. What do you think? -- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 14:00, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Is the following source reliable for the Timeline of al-Qaeda attacks article:
User:Vexorg is repeatedly removing it from the article. He seems to want every source to explicitly say Al Qaeda was responsible, though I think the source certainly is a valid to say when the 1992 Yemen attack happened, where, etc. And then, other sources are included for the Al Qaeda responsibility. -- Aude ( talk) 06:30, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
So, what do you do when there is information found in a reliable source (let's just assume it is one) which does not conflict with other reliable sources (because they just don't contain this piece of information) but which is essentially just an unsubstantiated estimate? In this case, another editor just added to the raccoon article that 15 million raccoons are killed each year by vehicles using this source. I can't wrap my mind around the concept to derivate the numbers for the whole of the United States from 25 school districts in New England. If the numbers were from various school districts all over the United States, it would be okay, I guess. To say something like "According to x..." would not make it better since there is still no substance behind the claim. -- Novil Ariandis ( talk) 20:17, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Is the web-site "www.britains-smallwars.com/" acceptable in articles? Either the whole site as a regular RS to policy, or this sub-page acceptable reference for the "fact" that 784 soldiers were buried in Palestine between 1945 and 1948 and are memorialized in Staffordshire, and the "fact" there were Danish soldiers amongst them. (This from a list of "61 pages containing 1120 names, including Foreign Nationals and Palestine Police" cited to the Commonwealth War Graves Commission).
The information and source was removed here with a TalkPage contribution here which says, in part: "... not a reliable source. The account itself conceded that the numbers it presents are at odds with official figures and that there's a 'vast discrepancy between this new figure,and that of the MOD'. Second, even of this was sourced to a reliable source, it simply does not say what is claimed. Namely, that these people were killed by Zionist political violence. All it says is a that this the number of British and Danish soldiers currently buried in Israel."
The web-site in question reached its 10th birthday last month, and we have the names of two web-masters and one author. The page here indicates this to be an active project with a great deal of outside contribution, which has added a further 11 pages in the last 3 months. The specific reference to the Danish soldiers buried is cited to Mr G. Webb, Secretary of Palestine Pals Association of xxxxxx Norfolk, England PE30 for whom someone has passed on a message that credits much assistance received and ending "As you can see, the Palestine stone ... is not the work of one man, although many seem to think it is." PR talk 15:46, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
http://www.cinematographers.nl/default.htm
What are thoughts of using this as a source? Cirt ( talk) 07:17, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
I've used it several times when enhancing articles about cinematographers. Rather than rely on it solely as a definitive source, I looked for at least one other source confirming information it contained before citing it. In every instance I found such confirmation. LiteraryMaven ( talk) 22:02, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
People are removing numerous sources [10] claiming they violate RS. Could some uninvolved editor explain which of the sources that are both MSM and legal experts are or are not permissable? See diff or this version [11] to ascertain if any of the refs there are inadmissable. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 15:46, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Here are some sopurces Linking UET Prof Levinson [12] Scott Horton (lawyer) [13] [14] Der Spiegel [15] Le Monde Diplomatique [16] All aparrently violating RS. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 16:45, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
First, you may not be aware that ArbCom feels that Articles by established journalists and published authors may sometimes be judged by the reputation of the author rather than the venue they are published in. Therefore any notable individual (i.e. Kofi Anan, George Bush, John Dean), even when writing for a blog is acceptable. Second, you will find that if one would actually take the effort of actually reading the references every part of the article is verifiable. Third, to call "the writings of reputable legal experts "pop magazine pieces" is at best unfortunate. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:49, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Sorry for the mess, here are the sources claimed to represent the FRINGE and which I am interested to learn whether they are WP:RS Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, Harper's Magazine, John Dean, Marty Lederman. Please could somebody clarify? Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 08:55, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Several observation. Calling a sudden influx of new editors on the same time consensus stresses believe. Further, the blatant misrepresentation in this forum is appalingly schocking. Calling Le Monde Diplomatique, Der Spiegel, The Washington Post, and more LaRouche is at best an uninformed judgement, at worst wilfully misleading potential commenters here. As to accusations of SYNTH and OR, the information this group of editors is trying to eradicate is heavily sourced (almost every sentence) and literally taken from those sources. Nowhere is there a statement that cannot be attributed. If so I am looking forward to specific examples and not name-calling. Merely spouting acronyms in the hope something will stick is not cool. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:57, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
is http://glockstore.com/blog_detail/74_Compensated_vs_Ported_Barrels a reliable source? it's a blog, which is usually not a reliable source, but there is an edit war on Glock pistol because one editor claims that since the blog says the same thing as other reliable sources, the blog is therefore reliable. Theserialcomma ( talk) 20:18, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
Suppose I am going to use a newspaper, let's say, "Somewheristan News", as a source in an article. But the newspaper is actually quoting an expert, say "Dr. John Smith".
Should I, in the article text, write "Somewheristan News states that it is going to rain tomorrow", or "Dr. John Smith states that it is going to rain tomorrow"?
And if this is disputed, can I for instance write, "Daily Somewheristan states that it is not going to rain tomorrow, but other source states that it is indeed going to rain" - the "other source" here, of course, meaning "Dr. John Smith as quoted by Somewheristan News"?
And if I write it like that, and other user edits it to "Daily Somewheristan states that it is not going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith believes the opposite", can I reverse such edit? Ninguém ( talk) 01:20, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Well, not exactly. It would be the following case:
Source 1: It is not going to rain tomorrow. Source 2: Most experts agree it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith says it is actually going to rain tomorrow.
Sources 1 and 2 aren't experts in meteorology, just news organisations.
This is then quoted in the article like,
"Source 1 says that it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but other source says it is going to rain".
Then if someone tries to change that to "Source 1 says it isn't going to rain tomorrow, but Dr. John Smith says it is going to rain", the edit is reversed. Ninguém ( talk) 13:38, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
OK. I was trying to put things in a neutral way; few people do have an axe to grind concerning tomorrow's weather. If I should bring into discussion the actual problem, then in fact it is about demography.
It has to do with the percent of Brazilians that are of German descent, in the article White Brazilians. It is reported that the German consulates in Brazil believe there are 5 million people of German descent in Brazil. Then it is stated that "other source" states 10% of the Brazilian population. The other source is in Portuguese, an online newssource on German-related issues, Deutsche Welle. It reports the following:
Já o jornalista e historiador Dieter Böhnke, de São Paulo, relativiza essa data, afirmando que os primeiros alemães desembarcaram em 1500, entre eles o cozinheiro de Pedro Álvares de Cabral. Segundo ele, mais de 10% da atual população brasileira tem pelo menos um antepassado alemão.
Which means, "But journalist and historian Dieter Böhnke, from São Paulo, relativises this date*, stating that the first Germans arrived in 1500, among them Pedro Álvares Cabral's cook. According to him, more than 10% of the Brazilian population nowadays has at leas one German ancestor."
What I want to do is to put in the text of the article, "historian Dieter Böhnke", instead of "other source". Is it possible? Ninguém ( talk) 14:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
I see... should it be then, "according to Deutsche Welle, historian Dieter Böhnke states that..."?
The problem here is that, for all that I know, Deustsche Welle's credibility is higher than Dieter Böhnke's. As the source is in Portuguese, people may be misleaded to believe Deutsche Welle endorses Böhnke's theory, while it is in fact merely reporting the fact that it is Böhnke's theory. Ninguém ( talk) 16:16, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Thank you! Ninguém ( talk) 17:29, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
According to the New York Times, in his book Earthforce! Paul Watson advises readers to make up facts and figures when they need to, and to deliver them to reporters confidently, "as Ronald Reagan did." (Militants sink two of Iceland's Whaling Vessels. New York Times, November 10, 1986.) If he has published statements advocating lying, can anything self-published by this individual in future ever be considered reliable? How can we know when he is lying and when he is not? Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 14:44, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
As discussed here [17], "entries dealing with Hugo Chavez and Venezuela do not reflect WP:DUE attention to broad, mainstream, reputable and reliable sources according to WP:V. Most of the arguments presented there are spurious and those sources are clearly and blatantly biased for all the reasons long known to most knowledgeable about Venezuela." Further, evidence confirming bias and conflict of interests of certain sources [ [18]]is completely ignored by some editors that otherwise apply, almost immediately, Wiki principles to sources that clash with their POV. Can independent editors please look into this matter? Alekboyd ( talk) 15:17, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
Is this particular page at TVSquad.com a blog-type page, or is Ryan j Budke some type of professional TV critic? The bio to which one is directed when clicking on his name does not indicate the latter. What say you? Nightscream ( talk) 04:01, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
A dispute has arisen at Dolphinarium discotheque suicide bombing concerning the reliability of the website [19], specifically regarding the following paragraph:
While Palestinian leader Yasser Arafat later did condemn the act, documents seized by the IDF during Operation Defensive Shield revealed that the Palestinian Ministry of Social Affairs granted a sum of $2,000 to the father of the bomber about two weeks later. [4]
The website's self-description can be found here. Discussion is welcome; my personal position is that it looks like a professional organization with paid staff members and editorial oversight, although we necessarily have to control for bias in something as fraught as the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Ray ( talk) 15:11, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
Can I get some outside (not the usual IP crowd) feedback on whether terrorism-info.org.il is a reliable source or not? It is an issue that pops up now and then and is the centre of contention in two discussions here and here.
Cheers and thanks, pedrito - talk - 02.02.2009 15:39
Comment from an involved editor This is more than a regular POV source (the kind we use and have to use constantly). It is effectively a propaganda operation. It calls itself "an NGO dedicated to the memory of the fallen of the Israeli Intelligence Community and it is located near Gelilot, north of Tel Aviv. It is headed by (Col. Ret.) Dr. Reuven Erlich". We have to ask ourselves whether we'd use a web-site dedicated to Muslim martyrs, hosted by retired Palestinian militants or Iranians.
The site hosts "A display of Palestinian documents and materials related to terrorism, captured by the Israel Defense Forces in the Palestinian Authority-administered territories. The display includes weapons, posters, documents and various types of equipment" leaving the door wide open for outright fabrication. Any form of cult document and any form of criminal activity can be laid at the door of the PA in this fashion - and this despite the fact they have very little control with every security asset of theirs has been repeatedly flattened and their staff at every level subject to assassination, often at random. (PA areas are also full of collaborators, again making any kind of determination of what's really happened virtually impossible).
This site is not irredeemable, even handing modest encouragement back to the "peace lobby" "Since the end of Operation Cast Lead, the terrorist organizations in the Gaza Strip have violated the ceasefire 12 times. In our assessment, Hamas wants quiet in the Gaza Strip but so far does not deter the other organizations" but its reliability for anything "surprising" can only be slim. A report on these PA documents from internationals is the minimum we should expect before refering to them.
PR
talk 10:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am preparing Premiere (The O.C.) for FAC, and have been advised (by Ealdgyth) to get feedback here of whether http://www.seeing-stars.com/oc/ is reliable.
I would say that it is reliable as a self-published source. It is written by Gary Wayne, someone who has become an expert in that field, and who's site has gained coverage in relaible third party publications. These include the Washington Post, Los Angeles Daily News, and Los Angeles Times. Additionally, an article in Chino's Daily Bulletin specifically mentions that The O.C. part of the site "backs up its assertions with photographic comparisons." There is also an area on the site in question that details its press reviews. I have put forward a case for why I feel it is a reliable source, and would like input from the community to determine whether it can be deemed reliable or not. Many thanks in advance for all comments, Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:52, 4 February 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for you comment, does anyone else agree/disagree. I would like to try and build some form of consensus, so I would like as much input here as possible. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 23:38, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Center for Defense Information a reliable source? I have seen many cases where it seems quite biased, especially when it comes to Russia related themes. If you take a look at [20], you'll notice that almost everything they say about Russia is negative. At the very least I think they certainly have a strong agenda. Offliner ( talk) 12:31, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
At Talk:Pauley Perrette there's disagreement over IMDb used as a reliable source. Feedback there, and clarification at Wikipedia:Reliable source examples please. Thanks. -- Jeandré, 2009-02-09 t00:58z
I would like some opinions as to the reliability of sources for the biographical article on Jack Warner. I don't know if I should list them here. I am concerned in particular with the "Early Years" section. They are published sources in book form, but I contend that they aren't reliable enough to be used, and in some instances paraphrased as fact, for encyclopedic content. In my opinion they are in the "creative writing" mode, designed to be a good read, but there is no evidence that there was any fact-checking involved. They disagree with each other on some points and seem very much prone to repeating heresay. Thanks! 69.86.119.87 ( talk) 18:03, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
No, that isn't a published source in book form and is quite the opposite of what I'm talking about. One of the books I refer to above is Cass Sperling, Cork Millner, Jack Warner, "Hollywood be thy Name, the Warner Brothers Story" (University Press of Kentucky:1998), which can be read, in part, at google.com. Particularly, pages 17-22 covering some of the early period of Benjamin Warner and his family. Others are Bob Thomas, "Clown Prince of Hollywood: The Antic Life and Times of Jack L. Warner," (McGraw-Hill Publishing Company, New York:1990) and Michael Freedland, "The Warner Brothers" (Harrap:1983). Declair ( talk) 18:25, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
I am having a difference of opinion with an editor. Is this organization and it's archives, specifically [22] (under Medical Literature Review), a sufficiently reliable source to support the wording, "Bell served as a board member of the International Association for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME."? Thanks. Ward20 ( talk) 01:21, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Can they be used as sources?
For instance,
(which, besides being interactive, is also in Portuguese) - can it be used as a source for religion in Brazil?
Thanks in advance, Ninguém ( talk) 14:43, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
No, the information is in the IBGE database. It's official government information. Users can only retrieve information, mounting their own tables. The problem would be, using it as a source would probably imply explaining how to retrieve information... or not? People who don't know Portuguese probably will have trouble accessing it, I imagine. Ninguém ( talk) 16:36, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hi there, please could you tell me if journalist's blogs can be considered as a reliable source? This concerns a controversial matter regarding the biography of a living person; a newspaper sensationally (and inaccurately) reported a detail of the controversy which, while more 'readable' and 'exciting' I feel unfairly blows the whole thing out of proportion. I would like to get it changed/toned down on Wikipedia and have found a blog by a journalist which presents a far more fair and balanced portrayal of what actually happened. I'm told I need evidence from a reliable source in order to sanction this - would the journalist's blog count? Thanks in advance for any help or light you can shed on this. Cheers guys. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MinxCariad ( talk • contribs)
I'd like to raise the status of IsraelInsider as a reliable source. It has previously been the subject of discussions on Wikipedia about its reliability (see [26]), as it's linked from numerous articles (see [27]). However, there are a number of things that make me doubt its reliability. It's run by a Tel Aviv web design company called Koret Communications rather than any mainstream media organisations. It has the characteristics of a self-published source: its founder, Reuven Koret, is the website's owner, publisher, editor and apparently the principal if not the sole author of its news stories. According to him it's a "social blogzine, combining the characteristics of a newsmagazine, a web journal, and a social network. The journal aims to present an insider perspective on the Jewish State for the outside world. Registered members can create profiles, post comments or blog entries, or communicate with each other." [28] Looking at some of the content, I think we would definitely have to consider it a questionable source for its focus on fringe and extremist viewpoints - they seem to have a thing about Barack Obama in particular (" Is Barack Obama a Muslim wolf in Christian wool?"). I'd be interested to know what others think about this. -- ChrisO ( talk) 23:51, 23 January 2009 (UTC)
Outside view: Nothing about the website's organization and (often fringy) original content indicates that it would qualify as a reliable source on wikipedia, especially since the posted stories seem to confound news, analysis and commentary. Even a biased source can be cited on wikipedia (with proper attribution) if it is a noteworthy/prominent voice, but I haven't found any evidence (such as other RS'es quoting it) that this is true for the Isrealinsider either. Abecedare ( talk) 10:31, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Some other sources for the use of "Hezbollywood": Jewish journal, National Post [38] The g-hits for "Hezbollywood" are 13,800. Obviously, since it is a new and "informal" name, it will not be written in most RS newspapers as reporting language. However, there is considerable evidence that it is now a commonly-used term to describe this phenomenon. The fact that the World Socialist Web site and the Iranian site are using it demonstrates that it is in common parlance. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:44, 24 January 2009 (UTC)
Uninvolved note: I got to this discussion by following a link sent via random PM on IRC from Jaakobou. Apparently he's been randomly canvassing people in the main en-wiki channel, sending a link to "look at his argument here". I don't really care and I'm not gonna do anything, but I figured it might be relevant to your interests. Bullzeye contribs 08:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Not RS - the first article I picked up from this "newsmagazine" was this one from 2004, subject "The ADL and Never Again". It includes statements such as "Of course, anyone who will look at the facts honestly will find that Rabbi Kahane was not a racist but rather telling the painful truth about Israel's enemies as he was correct in his observations concerning the PLO and the Palestinians." Need I go on, or will the details at Meir Kahane suffice? PR talk 18:32, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
Outside view: Seems a clear fail of our reliable sources policies and should not be used as a source. -- Cameron Scott ( talk) 12:14, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Does this source meet Wikiepdia's WP:RS criteria? It is published by a mainstream publisher (Random House), and co-authored by two academics, one is the Taube Research Fellow in American History at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University and the author of nine other history books. The other is on the faculty of the Fromm Institute at the University of San Francisco, and is described as "an author, teacher, archivist, political consultant, and talk show host". It seems to me this meets all the requirements set out by WP:RS, but some editors are objecting to its use, even when the claims made in it are attributed to its authors and not stated as fact, on the grounds that it is "cruft", or that the authors are "quacks". NoCal100 ( talk) 05:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
Very interesting case! The pedigree of the book (publishers, academic authors) looks impressive enough at first glance for one to say that this is a reliable source for wikipedia. However, as far as I can see, informed reviews of the book have been uniformly negative and have, in particular, criticized it for factual inaccuracies. That means we have multiple real-world reliable sources saying that this book is unreliable, and I don't think WP:RSN can overrule that. So, unless new evidence is brought to light, I would have to agree with ChrisO and Nishidani, that this book does not pass the WP:RS-test. Abecedare ( talk) 21:29, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
I think we are heading down a slippery slope here, by suggesting that books that received negative reviews fail to meet WP:RS. The article Icon of Evil was rewritten by ChrisO today. 30 minutes after he finished his rewrite, he is posting here, making his case based on that rewrite. I have many issues with that rewrite, which appears to have cherry picked only the most negative reviews, in order to claim that 'Reviews for the book were generally poor'. A few examples:
My main point is not directly related to Icon of Evil, which might very well be a poor source for extraordinary claims about Husseini, but with the methodology proposed here, of disqualifying a book because it received some very negative reviews. Take, as an example The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine, by Israeli historian Ilan Pappe. This book was torn to shreds by some reviewers. David Pryce-Jones in Literary Review pronounces "As history, the book is worthless." Seth J. Frantzman in Middle East Quarterly says of several of its passages that they are "a cynical exercise in manipulating evidence to fit an implausible thesis.", and that "As a work of scholarship, Pappé's book falls short, and it does so in a particularly damning way. He ignores context and draws far broader conclusions than evidence allows by cherry-picking some reports and ignoring other sources entirely." Mordechai Bar-On was highly critical of the book, and called Pappe “a propagandist, not a historian.” So? Will we now remove it as re frence from the dozen or so articles it is used in? I think not. Canadian Monkey ( talk) 01:12, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
Haj Amin el-Husseini has been the Invisible Man of modern Middle East history: Academic courses across Britain, the United States, the European Union and even in Israel over the past 60 years have failed to do more than mention him.
The mufti had been jailed by the British for 15 years only a few months before for inciting a bloody pogrom against Jewish inhabitants of the Old City of Jerusalem only the year before in 1920.
I'm just popping in here to deconstruct some apparent complete misunderstanding of No original research. This policy prohibits what content may be placed on a Wikipedia article. It prevents editors from adding their personal findings or interpretations (also prohibited by NPOV anyway). So I have to very emphatically say that WP:OR does not restrict editorial decisions about which sources are reliable or appropriate for an article. You'll notice that the guideline explicitly affects only articles and only the content therein. Behind the scenes original research to filter out bad sources is not and never has been prohibited. So if an editor claims to have uncovered numerous inconsistencies in a questinable source, it is best for Wikipedia to actually consider it instead of digging one's head into the ground. Someguy1221 ( talk) 23:18, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
For extraordinary claims, I'd say it would need to be cited as a source of opinion, not fact, e.g. "In their book Icon of Evil, authors David G. Dalin and John F. Rothmann claimed that..." Of course, this would leave the question of whether the extraordinary claim was notable enough for inclusion in the article in the first place. If this book were the only source of the claim, it would be hard to justify its inclusion in an article. Dlabtot ( talk) 00:34, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
'Oh, and yes, there are some factual errors in the book. Show me a book of history that has none. Canadian Monkey
Does this source meet Wikiepdia's WP:RS criteria?
Comment. One problem with attributing the claim to the author: apparently this book (icon of evil) got bad reviews from other scholars. So, if we are to attribute the claim to the book, we need to make it very clear to the reader that this book got bad reviews and criticisms. i.e: (icon of evil) claims so and so, however the book got was heavily criticized. Which I'm not sure if it's encyclopedic. Imad marie ( talk) 12:31, 31 January 2009 (UTC)
WP:ASF starts out with:'Assert facts, including facts about opinions—but do not assert the opinions themselves. By "fact" we mean "a piece of information about which there is no serious dispute." The information is a rumour, evidently concocted to smear three people almost a century ago, and not a fact. Of all modern sources, fully familiar with the 'facts', none I know of mentions it. The only recent book on the mufti to mention it is written by people with no formal qualifications in Middle Eastern history. Hence the dominant issues are WP:FRINGE and WP:RS, neither of which would seem to back the inclusion of this source on the page.
Dalin, Icon of Evil is exactly on the same level as Pappé, The Ethnic Cleansing of Palestine. The reasons are that these authors have political agendas (they don't hide this) and come with "controversed" analysis or conclusions. I would personnaly not use them to report facts but try to find better ones, such as Zvi Elpeleg and Philip Mattar for what concerns the Mufti and as Benny Morris or Nur Masalha for what concerns the 1948 Exodus.
Nevertheless, wikipedia offers us no real tool or rule to start selecting which academic source would be right and which one would not.
As a consequence, I would suggest :
I have a question : it was asked several time if this book was a wp:rs source. But a wp:rs source for what fact ? If it is about general relativity, they are not ! What would you like to source with this ? Ceedjee ( talk) 16:11, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
My two cents is that for the claim of homosexuality, redflag would be the appropriate policy, since this is a "surprising or apparently important claims not covered by mainstream sources". Until and unless it is covered by mainstream sources, it should be left out of the article. However, for other issues the book has not got such "bad" reviews. Tom Segev doesn't like it for political reasons. Most of the reviews acknowledge that it is well researched but feel it is overly political and biased. This is not uncommon for a work documenting fairly contemporary history. Thus I say, ok for historical points, not for exceptional claims that they are the first and only to document, such as homosexuality. Tundrabuggy ( talk) 16:45, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm curious as to what you think about TorrentFreak (it has an article at TorrentFreak). It is a self-published blog dedicated to online filesharing, and gives a strong focus on reporting information regarding illegal online activity, like transferring movies online and such. The website is definitely one of the most, if not the most, popular websites dedicated to illegal online filesharing, but because of its nature, I don't think it can really ever be considered a "professional" website—but the website's writers are certainly "experts" in their field. There are hundreds of reliable sources that reference the website; about 156 on Google News, and a few on Google Books. " Scene stealer: The aXXo files" from The Independent is a particularly good article that mentions the website several times.
The site doesn't share copyright material, just discuss it. In particular, they have a lot of interviews with people in the industry—not just people who trade software online, but also with people who work for government agencies and organizations like the MPAA and RIAA who are charged with preventing piracy, so those can be very useful. A lot of the material is similar to The Indendent article I linked above. Also, I don't plan to include it in just any article; I'd like to use it in articles such as aXXo and The Pirate Bay, both which are about software piracy, so TorrentFreak is very relevant in these cases. Thoughts? Gary King ( talk) 18:30, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
I would like a second opinion on this source. I believe that in context it passes reliability criteria, but if it does not I can find other sources, but I would really prefer not to. The source in question is this book on Google Books which is a book published by "Digital Scanning, Inc" and appears to be a small-town print-on-demand type operation. (This is a book on local history, so there may not be much of a market for it.) It's available on Amazon, though I know that doesn't mean much.
My feeling is that the authority of the author here trumps the potential lack of authority in the publisher and that this source is "reliable". Can I please have a second or third opinion? The article this refers to is Wessagusset Colony. JRP ( talk) 04:32, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Can someone help with the edit warring at MEMRI? The issue is whether Juan Cole's blog is acceptable under WP:SELFPUB for purposes of commenting om MEMRI. There is consensus that Cole's commentary is relevant to issues raised in the entry. WP:SELFPUB says:
and
Cole certainly qualifies under [A]. He's an established expert on the Middle East. He's an academic with many scholarly publications, he's published many articles in major newspapers and magazines such as the New York Times, he's frequently quoted in major news sources, and he appears on major radio and TV programs in the English-speaking and Arabic-speaking world.
The question is whether Cole is disqualified under [B]. Some editors read [B] as saying that Cole's blog "can't be used here". Others read the guideline provision that blogs "may sometimes be cited" as applying to Cole's blog.
The editors who oppose Cole read [B] as saying that, instead of quoting Cole's blog, we must find a reliable source that cites Cole. However, this subject, criticism of the Arab media, is specialized and most of the people who critique MEMRI are in Cole's position. So the alternative reading of [B] is that non-self-published sources are preferable but if they don't exist self-published sources are acceptable.
Does SELFPUB allow Cole's blog? Does it forbid Cole's blog? How do we decide? Nbauman ( talk) 00:51, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
cole's criticism, which is included in the article, comprises one sentence/two lines. this "section" is clearly attributable to him. his arguments/observations were not existent there before, therefore it's not a repetition.-- Severino ( talk) 21:20, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
cole doesn't really make the same point as hooper and lalami. of course it too centers on selectivity - thats the title of the section. but his observation is not mirrored in the other statements.-- Severino ( talk) 21:00, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Hooper and Lalami quotes are more concise and clear, and found in reliable sources. The Cole quote is overly wordy, and not found in a reliable source. I think the issue is pretty much settled. Jayjg (talk) 04:43, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello, I'd like to know if I can use the following webpage in wikipedia dedicated to a musical genre.I know websites are to be used with caution in general. But I'd like to know if I can quote this page: [42] in specifying this is a view from a website like this:
The website "A Study of Gothic subculture" describes it as being "most characterized by soprano female vocals combined with bass, lead guitar, and drums which creates a surreal, angelic or otherworldly effect e.g...."
Also I have to specify this is not the only source I use, we also use published sources for this article. As I said I'm aware online sources have to be used with caution, but I just like to know if I can use it in specifying this is a view of this site.
Thanks in advance Fred D.Hunter ( talk) 16:58, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
Okay, here's the issue in a nutshell:
The March/April 2008 issue of NY Arts had an article by Angela Holm. Her byline for the article said:
Angela Holm is a San Francisco-based freelance writer and the Director of Productions at Big Sound, Inc., where she is currently working on the definitive restoration of the 1929 silent film, Pandora’s Box.
The initial version of Ferguson's article said (May 2008):
Ferguson formed Big Sound in 2006 as a means of realizing his ambitions to preserve and present classic silent films in a live setting. ... The German classic Pandora's Box — based on the restoration of the original film funded by Hugh M. Hefner — which starred the American actress and Jazz Age icon, Louise Brooks is the first of Big Sound's restoration efforts. Spearheaded by Ferguson and Big Sound's Vice President of Production Angela Holm, the project also enlisted The George Eastman House, a preeminent leader in film restoration, as its archival sponsor.
My thought: okay, Holm worked for Big Sound (based on her byline). Per the old version of the article, not only did she work for BS, but Ferguson started BS, and they worked together. Easy answer: it's obvious COI, and we can't use her piece as a source.
At a later point, research made it clear that there are no sources for that section at all—not that he founded BS, or even that it ever existed. Consequently, that section got cut. That's fine by me.
However, now an editor (one with an admitted conflict of interest) is claiming that this is trying to have it both ways: WP must either allow something to be in the article with no sourcing (the existence of BS) or WP must allow Holm's biased article to be used as a source (since our article no longer says she works for him).
My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true. I think it's a DUCK, and we can't use her piece as a source.
Your thoughts? Dori ( Talk • Contribs) 01:21, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Re: DoriSmith is trying to cloud the RS discussion by again reintroducing as evidence something that she, herself, previously dismissed as unreliable due to lack of verification. Now she is straining to recycle the original David Ferguson (impresario) article to illustrate a COI between Angela Holm and the article's subject, David Ferguson.
To quote DoriSmith from above: "My take: there are plenty of things in the world that aren't referenced well enough to be used in WP but we know to be true."
Is this instinctive knowledge that Dori refers to corroborated by any verifiable third party source?? Funny...but I bet if another user tried that 'plenty of things...but we know to true' nonsense to substantiate or argue for the inclusion of a passage of text in an article, Dori would step in and challenge immediately and be most vociferous in her objection. For example, in addressing user 'Damesmartypants' (who has stocked Ferguson's Discussion page with potentially libelous commentary), DoriSmith wrote:
Could we please stop all talk about "go contact so-and-so" or "it's generally known by insiders" or similar language? If you want to do that kind of writing, go start a blog. That's not what WP is about. If you have any questions, read the above quotation again, and follow the links. How about we instead start discussing when would be a good cutoff for deleting all the stuff for which no one can find a cite? Or alternately, we could start editing the workpage I set up a few weeks ago. Right now, this article is still a disaster area. Dori (Talk • Contribs) 10:19, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Now that argument for verifiable sourcing seems to matter little. It was for those very reasons of improper sourcing that the Big Sound passage found in the original article was removed. Now DoriSmith wants to turn around and now use it as a fall-back position to defend what is an unfounded COI allegation. This hypocritical gesture should be confronted and the NY Arts article written by Angela Holm should be allowed to substantiate text for the David Ferguson (impresario) article.
Thank you for reviewing
DrJamesX ( talk) 04:34, 12 February 2009 (UTC)DrJamesX
Is this website acceptable for use as a reliable source? It seems like anyone could post there. The article is for BART Police shooting of Oscar Grant and the link [44] is a legal document. I'm concerned it's being used as a primary source instead of what newsmedia are reporting in the high-profile case. -- Banjeboi 20:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
Authentication. Ferrylodge ( talk) 23:52, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
Question. How is sfgate publishing it make it authentic? Maybe they got it from Wikipedia?
Question. Is not this a primary source. Are no secondary sources available?(unsigned)
Yes -- documents are intrinsically "primary sources" about which reams of electronic paper have been used on the appropriate noticeboards. In practice, it means that you should only use the precise wording in the document, and avoid making any conjectures whatever otherwise. And if conjecture is needed, then you absolutely need a different source. IMHO. Collect ( talk) 16:16, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
In this case there are hundreds of reliable sources. Why are we trying to use any primary sources? Perhaps Wikipedia should wait until some reliable secondary sources report the material instead?
If it is a primary source which is POV slanted it would seem better to leave it off. If it must be included then it should be matched u with corresponding POV primary sources representing the other legal side of the argument. It would probably be best to leave them both off and use reliable secondary sources instead. This case is wisely covered so why not a neutral summary in lieu of two POV statements from primary sources?
There remains doubt if this is an authentic document even though a media source has also posted a copy. And it remains a primary source with an obvious bias. This is cited to at least five statement in the article. If reliable sources cover those statements then this is not needed. If they don't cover those statements then maybe the statements should be left out. There is eagerness to use faulty sourcing when we should instead focus on neutral writing.
It has been put in again [45] and even expanded when no consensus for the use has materialized. Maybe we should use secondary sources here instead of primary sources when there are so many available. This case is in the headlines regularly so there is little need for Wikipedia to quote court documents. This seem to go against neutrality. Also the talkpage discussion was favoring removing all the speculation and strip down the POV material.
Sorry I followed the article talk page here, the discussion on the talk page favored leaving POV material out so I wondered why it was re-added. The discussion there leans towards bullying as far as I can tell so I do not wish to be a part of that. (~)
This book review:
Used in article:
Issue:
[1] Web link is supposedly of his review published in Israel Horizons, but it seems to have been edited extensively. Postscripts, addendums - what else was changed?
[2] No way of telling whether or not this publication is widespread or respected enough to be considered reliable. The publisher
Meretz does not give any circulation information, which sets off alarm bells for me. In my experience, any publication that doesn't trumpet its circulation numbers is usually very limited. Reputation is part of
WP:RS - with few publications referring to the magazine (that I can find), should it really qualify, as is required by
WP:RS, "reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy"?
[3] Amateurish writing style - for example, "I did take the trouble to question my orthodox rabbi nephew to find...". No identified expert referred to? His nephew? I couldn't get away with using my mommy as a reference back in grade 5. Should one really consider such a poorly written article to be
WP:RS? Doesn't the amateurish writing indicate that it's not up to quality for use as a reliable source?
[4] The article completely misrepresents the facts - he states, "Gore Vidal tells us that an (unnamed) "American Zionist" brought Harry Truman two million dollars", where the actual introduction has it as a humorous anecdote - or in his words, "a funny story". Yes, yes - no original research. But the misrepresentation of facts seems to be enough grounds for it to bring into question it's applicability for use as a
WP:RS, aside from use as a source of colorful and inflammatory language to use to discredit Israel Shahak, hopefully misleading any reader who doesn't take the time to check the actual material being referred to.
In a nutshell, my opinion is that it's an incredibly poor
WP:RS, and really doesn't deserve mention in a Wikipedia article. More professional, informed sources are surely available; written by people who actually take their time to check with experts and present arguments which don't completely misrepresent the facts.
Or is it entirely valid to use any old published material, so long as it adheres to the bare minimum of WP:RS? GrizzledOldMan ( talk) 19:08, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
A polemicist prone to personal smears and exaggerations, not RS The clip in use at the article
Israel Shahak is this one: "Dr. Shahak, whose nose is longer than Pinocchio's in any case, does not tell us the whole story of the incident." a review in 1994. I don't expect to see writing like this in an encyclopaedia, not even if the views of Werner Cohn were notable and Shahak was a fringe politician or notorious propagandist, publishing for political effect. (and neither is the case).
According to another
notorious polemicist, Werner Cohn goes to great effort to link Noam Chomsky to the views of a Holocaust Denier for whom Chomsky once signed a petition. This is "guilt by association", a classic McCarthyism, and Cohn dabbles in it himself, eg here on
Obama.
I think using this source (and the clip in question) raises serious questions about the balance of the whole article. Werner Cohn is most certainly not an RS, with "fact-checking" and an "editorial board" as required by policy and should not be used for anything factual or substantive in any article.
(I should add that I'm aware of the Shahak article and think it's atrocious, but I'm too frightened to have tried to edit it, ever).
PR
talk 15:12, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Hello. I am starting a discussion to bring up the reliability of the following sources.
"STEVE ANDERSONs Weekly DVD Reviews". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Slasherpool Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Horror Talk Reviews". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Slasherpool Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"Cinema Crazed Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
"4outof10 Review". Retrieved 2009-02-06.
Each of these sources was added by the user Magnius in the article The Asylum. The Asylum is known for producing low-budget films capitalizing on the releases of major Hollywood studios. These releases are sometimes known as "mockbusters". The article for the studio contains a section listing mockbusters and the original studio releases. I had asked editors not to add titles for which reliable sources (such as newspapers, books and NPR) which refer to each title as a "mockbuster" could not be provided. When I questioned Magnius about these sources, he did not respond in any way. He simply blanked his talk page without responding in either his editing description or on my own talk page. ( Ibaranoff24 ( talk) 00:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC))
I looked at a few of the sources. They do not appear reliable. That's all we can really do here. There's probably some other page that can help. Not sure which one, though. - Peregrine Fisher ( talk) ( contribs) 21:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Another editor and I have a question about whether an established club can be used as a reference on standards in a hobby. Specifically, whether the websites of the National Fancy Rat Society and American Fancy Rat and Mouse Assoc. can be used for claims about standards in coat colors, types, etc. for pet rats. My argument is that this is not unlike sourcing the American Kennel Club, or other such long-standing club when discussing standards, and it provides the most current and accessible reference. PSWG1920 would prefer to use books on pet rat care as they would be a more secondary source. Please respond at Talk:Fancy rat. Thanks! - ΖαππερΝαππερ Babel Alexandria 18:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
Specifically this one of Segovia: http://www.naxos.com/reviews/reviews.asp?reviewdate=2/0-0/2008&rvwtyp=2008/2&reviewtype=david#8.111092
Thanks, -- Rogerb67 ( talk) 02:04, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I'm trying to use this as a source/external link for Bengoshi no Kuzu. Japanese television drama, Miho Kanno, Naohito Fujiki, Sora Aoi, just to name a few, all cite jdorama.com as reference or external link. Is the information reliable? Extremepro ( talk) 06:34, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Could some expert take a look at Medpedia - currently preview as not launched yet & see whether it would be considered relaible because of the contributors - even though its a wiki?— Rod talk 11:18, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
hello
Anybody there to enlighten us about the use of internet-published encyclopedia as sources for debated points? We have a certain debate of using figures for ethnic groups and percentages from the following sources (there are no official figures on this subject):
My question: is any of these sources considered a reliable source? If some of these are not considered reliable, should they be deleted speedily or could they be kept as to give an overview of what figures are given around on internet?
Thanks for any answer-- Ilyacadiz ( talk) 16:40, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
I am interested in third opinions. At present, myself and another editor are in disagreement whether a passage from the book published by Oxford University Press, ISBN 978-0-19-514786-5, meets Wikipedia standards for inclusion in the article. This is the in dispute. This discussion is ongoing on the talk page Talk:Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Saul_Cornell_paid_mouthpiece_of_the_Joyce_Foundation_-_POV_bias_issue and I would welcome some third opinions in the discussion there. SaltyBoatr ( talk) 18:56, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Is Canadian Who's Who a reliable source for a WP biography about an individual listed there? In addition to other sources? Mervyn Emrys ( talk) 20:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Is JKRowling.com a reliable source to show that a fansite is notable? [54] -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 22:24, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
So, can it be used as one of the reliable sources required by Wikipedia:Notability (web)#Criteria? -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 22:38, 13 February 2009
There is an ongoing edit war in the Mariah Carey discography article regarding figures and sources for album sales. (The problem is much more widespread, but this is as good example as any.) The problem is that centrally located, publicly accessible information regarding world-wide album sales figures is not generally available (that I know of), and press releases and news stories from primary and secondary sources are spotty and often dated. Tertiary sources (such as fan sites) may provide more up-to-date information, but the reliability and verifiability of the information has been questioned. Several editors disagree as to what figures and sources should be used.
I consider myself a passer-by who took an interest in trying to resolve some of these sourcing issues. However, I am not familiar enough with the industry nor am I sufficiently knowledgeable in Wikipedia reliable source guidelines to know what the best solution would be. So I am inviting any of you who read this to join this discussion to express your views. More specifically, I also would like to solicit opinions on the use of " http://www.mariahdaily.com/infozone/charts/albums/worldwide/index.shtml" and " http://www.undercover.com.au/News-Story.aspx?id=4687" as sources. Thank you. -- Tcncv ( talk) 06:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
I may be breaking protocol, but I'm moving this to the end in another attempt to get some attention. Are there any RS regulars here here who could evaluate and comment on the sourcing problems in the Mariah Carey discography article?. I'm ready to punt and move on otherwise. Thank you. -- Tcncv ( talk) 06:21, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
Try billboard.com, they are the industry leader.(~)
What do people think of this? I ran across it here and when I saw the citation I was like "how on earth do I know for sure that this is the celebrity, and not someone with the same name?" I then did a link search and saw that this site is currently used over 500 on wikipedia. And suppose that a public figure, like a celebrity, does not want to have their birthday published, and they have successfully made sure that the birthdate has been kept out of the media, is it appropriate for wikipedia to dig up county records and publish the birthday for the first time? Anyway, what do others think about this site in general, and this case specifically?- Andrew c [talk] 03:29, 12 February 2009 (UTC)